Slashdot Mirror
Obama Unveils New Nuclear Doctrine
Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that under Obama's new 'Nuclear Posture Review,' released today, the US will foreswear the use of the nuclear weapons against nonnuclear countries, in contrast to previous administrations, which indicated they might use nuclear arms against nonnuclear states in retaliation for a biological or chemical attack. But the new policy included a major caveat: The countries must be in compliance with their nonproliferation obligations under international treaties. The problem for Iran and North Korea is that the pledge does not cover them because the US regards them as in non-compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The new policy will also describe the purpose of US weapons as being fundamentally for deterrence. Some Democratic legislators had urged Obama to go further and declare that the United States would not use nuclear weapons first in a conflict, but officials worried that such a change could unnerve allies protected by the US nuclear 'umbrella.' The president of the Ploughshares Fund said of the new stance, 'It orients US policy towards dramatically fewer weapons and greatly reduced roles.'"
Really the US/Russia/UK/France/PRC only need to have 50-150 devices to have dominance.
The rest of the US delivery systems (ICBM/SLBM) should go to conventional kinetic warheads.
...but to be honest it really doesn't limit the options of available targets. If we want to nuke someone, you'd best be sure we'll find a way to show that they're in "non-compliance".
As much as we reduce our nuclear weapons arsenel, there remain many a crazy nation that will gladly blow us to oblivion. A monkey who is throwing up a peace sign is not exempt from a skull bashing by the other monkeys.
The question is, which of the monkeys is the US?
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
If you (my next door neighbor) kill my family by purposefully spreading rat poison in our fresh vegetable garden, I promise to only shoot back at you with my pellet gun. But only if you don't own a gun.
The Mutually Assured Destruction plans of the Cold War are outdated... we're no longer fighting states with a homeland, we're fighting a mobile group that will go wherever lawlessness is tolerated and don't care what happens to innocents around them. Scorched Earth isn't the idea, it's really just a question of law enforcement. Gotta use different tactics for a different enemy.
I mean, the idea is, don't let your guard down against those countries that are obviously against your ideologies. However, for everyone else who has sworn the non-proliferation, this would help diplomatic relations. Perhaps when the rest of the world starts seeing the U.S. in better light, countries like Iran and North Korea will be a little more amicable to joining these kinds of treaties proposed by the U.N.
In the event that they are stubborn about nuclear domination, the U.S. can still be the standing power capable of keeping them in line.
If you (my next door neighbor) kill my family by purposefully spreading rat poison in our fresh vegetable garden, I promise to only shoot back at you with my pellet gun. But only if you don't own a gun.
We're talking about nuclear weapons. We're talking about whether we encourage or discourage the proliferation and use of weapons that can kill tens of thousands of people in an instant. I don't think it requires a cute analogy for the average person to understand.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
If Venezuela launches a biological attack (remember that chemical and biological attacks are a whole lot harder than they sound), they're in a world of hurt by conventional means. We wouldn't have nuked them under any President since, maybe, Eisenhower, more likely Truman, but have you looked at what the US spends on its military compared to any other country (or, for that matter, all other countries)?
Obama's promising the US won't do something that almost everybody was confident the US wouldn't do anyway. It's good PR but that's about it.
The cat has been out of the bag since at least 1982, when Britain did not nuke Argentina in the Falklands/Malvinas war. No nuclear power will nuke a non-nuclear power except out of dire necessity.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Right, because American nukes are the only thing holding them back.
Yes, because Venezuela is the country we need to worry about. Riiiiiiight.
First off, these pronouncements aren't worth the paper they're written on- they can be changed at a whim.
Secondly, this is just an announcement to the world of the administration's view of nuclear weapons. Which is unchanged in reality from our stance since the Russians got the bomb. We aren't going to start a nuclear war because someone could retaliate, and noone would win that fight. Not to mention the morality of indisciminately slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent non-combatants.
So don't worry- you're no safer or less safe than you were 12 hours ago. If you feel differently I suggest you consult the nearest psychiatrist about your paranoia.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Catrina did a great number on the US
There's a meaningful difference between Catrina and Katrina.
Obama is offering a pledge not to nuke the non-nuclear countries. Realistically, the offer is good until January of 2013, when a new president takes office. For whatever reason, he thinks Iran and North Korea will jump at the chance to become nuke-free states and take him up on his offer. I think the strategy is looney, but I suppose it doesn't really take any options off the table.
This weakness on foreign policy is going to result in another war. Fortunately, it is easy to monetize the new socialism. My stock portfolio consists of oil, defense, guns, and ammo.
But, But, I thought we had to nuke them all from orbit to be sure? Now international politics are getting really confusing. =/
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Why go all the way to Haiti? Catrina did a great number on the US, and there is always a minor sizemic activity, flood, forest fire, or lost persons... yes, HAM are the ones that go out there in those situations and run communications, often with their own equipment and on their own time. Even that parade you watch, the car race, space flight, or other local event may have been fully or in part orchistrated with the aid of HAM Radio operators. There is also significant technology brought out by HAM Radio experiementers--do you like the idea of Lo-Jack? APRS was the pattern for it.
Been writing in English long?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
...but to be honest it really doesn't limit the options of available targets. If we want to nuke someone, you'd best be sure we'll find a way to show that they're in "non-compliance".
I work for an extended warranty company and our lawyers have been getting these really rich offers from the Whitehouse.
(remember that chemical and biological attacks are a whole lot harder than they sound)
Really? See, most people have heard the name Haile Selassie I. Let your post serve as a reminder that most people don't know why they know his name.
Allow me to enlighten you: He was Emperor of Ethiopia when Italy invaded and attacked with chemical weapons. He made an passionate speech at the League of Nations condemning the use of chemical weapons.
If Italy, using 1930's technology, was capable of developing, delivering, and deploying chemical weapons in Ethiopia, I will go on record and make the claim that Venezuela could do the same to the US, using 2010's technology.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
At least we didn't give up the capability to send harshly worded letters!
The U.S. can change its mind and policy at any time. The U.S. can ignore this unilateral declartion at any time. Or the U.S. can just violate it without any legal consequences because there is no authority that can force the U.S. to comply with it.
I don't know how many man-years of time were spent developing this new policy or how it was paid for, but I'm gonna guess "lots" and "my taxes".
Honestly! You feel threatened by Venezuela?! Good thing we've had those nukes keeping Venezuela from attacking us!
Now, if we could get him to forswear any kind of preemptive attack, we might begin to repair the damage to our reputation done by the G. W. Bush Administration.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
since Iran is in fact fully in compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the NPT, regardless of what the US tries to say. NPT signatories have full right to develop and implement the complete nuclear fuel cycle for the purposes of generating power. NPT signatories are not obligated to submit to inspection of their nuclear facilities at the whim of anyone else. The fact that Iran has repeatedly done so demonstrates a remarkable tolerance on their part.
George Bush Center for Intelligence does not approve.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Yes, because Venezuela is the country we need to worry about.
Indeed. One wonders why some people are still so irrationally afraid of communists, real or imagined. I don't think much of Chavez, but he's not stupid or comic-book evil, the threat of being nuked was probably never on his top ten reasons not to attack the US.
Obama has what, less than 3 more years in the office? And then all the options will be back on the table again, reinstated by the next president. But even that is beside the point. The reason why this is such a pile of bovine manure is because if push comes to shove, this will be the first thing to fly out of the window. Reminds me of ABM systems in Poland. Suure we're not going to use them against Russia right now, but in case when they step on our toes all of a sudden this becomes a distinct possibility. Otherwise we'd have built those systems in Iraq, where they'd be closer to Iran, strikes from which we're supposedly trying to prevent.
US politicians should understand, first and foremost, that other countries are not stupid, and they've learned their lesson several times already, so they assume the worst. Which most of the time turns out to be the right thing to assume.
... are exempted, along with Iraq and Iran...
but Isreal has more nukes than everyone except USA/former USSR, and they aren't even mentioned.
Yet another example of US foreign policy that will go down very badly in the arab / muslim world.
Hell, it doesn't go down very well in Europe.
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
Really? The Battle of Midway was won with nukes?
Not a typewriter
He might not have meant physically difficult. I mean, any country can buy or manufacture chlorine gas and weaponize it fairly easily.
Rather, what I got was that using biological or chemical weapons is a great way to make a whole lot of enemies in world politics very quickly. I mean, look at the fallout the U.S. got from just engaging in a conventional war in Iraq.
It would have been nearly impossible to start firing chemical weapons into Iraq at the start of the war due to the stigma and potential repercussions from allies and neutrals.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Rule #1 of tyrannical dictators (which Chavez qualifies for these days, although I didn't think so 5 or so years ago)- tyrannical dictators want power. They want to maintain or increase their power. So they may do some sabre rattling, but they aren't going to seriously fuck with anyone who can really hurt them. If they have a small weak neighbor without defensive alliances they may attack their neighbor, but they won't do jack shit against a country many times their size, wealth, and military might. So let them rattle to their heart's content and otherwise ignore them. Just don't let them start snatching small countries, or you risk them thinking they can beat you.
This rule applies to all 3 big crazies at the moment- Venezuela, Iran, and N Korea. None of them are doing more than appealing to their support base. Think of it as the foreign equivalent of a Sarah Palin rally. Of the three Iran is the biggest threat because their is the religious fundamentalism aspect, but the drive for power far outweighs that.
Nations to be worried about are places like China. But its quite obvious the current rule of China is taking a long term view and is more interested in ruling through finance than arms- the fact they haven't invaded Taiwan is proof of that. We should be very concerned about the amount of money we borrow from them, but I don't see war in the next decade. Russia's another worry, but Putin for all his evil falls under rule #1- he likes ruling Russia and is more interested in holding power than anything else.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
It's called an "example". Chavez calls the US the devil. Iran says similar things about Israel and we take them seriously.
Are you honestly suggesting that we ignore people when they threaten us?
So what's new here?
country {x} does insane thing {y}. the usa has some law on the books about not retaliating to the satisfaction of random internet troll {z}
compute the value of internet troll {z}'s opinion as intelligence of {z} approached zero
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
And if he changes his mind, he'll simply ignore the pledge. This is just words.
I'll bet the US has a targeting solution for every bit of the planet.
Secondly, this is just an announcement to the world of the administration's view of nuclear weapons. Which is unchanged in reality from our stance since the Russians got the bomb. We aren't going to start a nuclear war because someone could retaliate, and noone would win that fight. Not to mention the morality of indisciminately slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent non-combatants.
Yes, it matches U.S. policy going back to the 1950s... with the exception of an 8-year gap from 2002 to 2010.
The Bush administration's version of this document specifically declared that the U.S. should be prepared to use nuclear weapons on a first-strike basis, and even against non-nuclear states.
You're right, a pronouncement that "we're not gonna nuke ya" isn't worth the paper that it's printed on. But it's a big concrete improvement over a previous pronouncement that "we might nuke ya."
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nwgs/npr_review.pdf
Was it Jimmy Carter? He was a "nucular" engineer IIRC.
these pronouncements DO have value: its good domestic and international pr
just as there are warhead morons who believe the usa actually just tied its hands, there are peacenik morons who believe the usa just promised to... tie its hands
politics is a lot about putting on a show for the stupid
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I don't understand why us borrowing money makes us weaker... can't we just default and bankrupt China? You know, like when we had our little housing problem we're just now getting out of and decided the banks didn't need to pay back the tons of money they'd got from foreign investors?
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
A buddy of mine is from Venezuela. He said no one really takes that guy seriously, except the dumb Americans.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
just now getting out of and decided the banks didn't need to pay back the tons of money they'd got from foreign investors?
Who do you think were all the AIG counter parties getting paid 100 cents on the dollar? Hint it wasn't all Goldman Sachs.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
Or failing to do everything in their power to replace our fiat currency with a representative currency, that way the nation can do something other than perpetually increase debt according to the design of the financial system.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Yeah, the Venezuelans are so brilliant that they leave him in charge of the country. Obviously it's Americans who are dumb.
Are you confusing the speculative bubble driven by Internet stocks with Bill Clinton actually doing something economically? His timing really was wonderful.
So, just how many nukes do they have? It's kind of hard to mention a nation that doesn't officially have any, but almost certainly does have them, isn't it? Don't worry about it, we would never attack them anyway.
Yes, chemical weapons are very effective when used in conjunction with conventional military attacks against less developed armies, or simply forces without protective equipment. (See also Japanese use in China, or German use on the Sevastopol fortresses.) The conventional attack forces the unequipped foe to concentrate, and then the poison gets them. They would also have been very effective in a large-scale bombing campaign (see the Italian theorist Douhet's writings in, I think, the 1920s, or for a sensationalized version in the early part of Stapleton's "Last and First Men"), if, say, Germany had used chemical weapons against the Western Allies.
They're notably less effective under other circumstances. Civilians tend to scatter, and it's hard to get a large bomber formation into US skies.
Consider the nerve gas attack in the Tokyo subway system during rush hour by whatever religious fanatics those were. It killed twelve people. The fanatics could probably have done better than that with knives.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Will they fix the nuclear reactor in florida? I heard that florida is in georgia.
There are long term costs to these weapons: r&d, tooling, production, periodical testing and calibration, and future maintenance. They are a significant investment and vital industry.
A small amount of weapons could do the *offensive* job but the smaller the cache, the more vulnerable they are to detection and interception. The defense concept is mutual assured destruction - and it requires a staggering overwhelming abundance of ready-to-use weapons. What really screwed the USA was the Carter admin agreeing not to further nuclear weapon r&d. We were on the way to a half-life of a matter of days in which the impact site could be habitual again...
Regardless of the morals and ethics, the bottom line is its good skilled and technical jobs for America that include retirement packages and healthcare. Get rid of the nukes and we put 10s of thousands of people out of work. (This is definitely putting my dad out of work.)
Plus the USA has the right to amass any sort of defense we feel necessary. We are a sovereign nation - no other entity has legal domain over us. Time and time again other nations break their promises to the US. To trust them at their word is foolhardy.
"Nucular" is the vernacular in half the country. I'm sorry you don't understand the concept of dialects, and you can go to hell if you want to judge me based on my accent.
Learn about Photography Basics.
The poster you're replying to, doesn't realize that this is just PR. For instance, the US could in that scenario give the CIS a hint of epic proportions by changing the doctrine.
You, on the other hand, don't understand that (1) what you're trying to convey is irrelevant and (2) you fail to convey it. I assume that you imply that the US is more aggressive than China or Russia but aggression against smaller countries that constitute no real threat is a completely different issue and it just isn't true, which is why you fail to make such a point. China isn't just occupying Tibet but consider it part of their territory. The same applies to Russia wrt. Chechnya (and you can also consider events in Georgia rather aggressive). The US is, however, at least not entirely intentionally willing to stay in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Then who'd make all our stuff?
The retail industry would die overnight, followed by most other forms of lightweight manufacturing (you know, all that cheap chinese crap people buy at walmart).
Then expand to other industries due to lack of parts.
As industry ground to a halt everything else would too.
It would make the current housing crises look like nothing
We had to use nukes. Once the Japanese landed their zombie marines on the beach, it was the only way to stop them.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Because if we default the economy will make the Great Depression look like the good old days.
*The dollar would immediately crash to record lows as no foreign investors would trust US assets.
*The US would be unable to borrow additional money, probably at any rate. Who would trust us? Even if we offered up the white house as collateral we could just reneg again
*Banks, companies, and individual investors hold billions in US savings bonds as long term safe investments. They're considered as good as cash- you can bring one to a bank and they'll pay you on the spot for it with only a service fee. Those would become worth pennies on the dollar. Banks would go bankrupt and be unable to loan, companies would be unable to make payroll. You would be looking at 30-40% unemplyment within a year.
The US has never defaulted on a national debt in its 230+ year history. It won't start now. We'd be better off jumping back to Eisenhower tax rates to pay interest than in defaulting.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
I don't get this argument. As soon as it becomes actively required, I don't see what would ever stop the US from using their nuclear weapons. You've spent hundreds of Billions on your nuclear arsenal and aren't going to be limited by a fancy piece of paper with a presidential stamp on it.
When was the US likely to use their nukes on any country that attacked them via conventional means anyway? As most people have pointed out, this is a nice PR stunt, but you've reiterated the sort-of known stance of the US since the end of the cold war, we've got nukes but we don't really want to use them.
Venezuela may now feel they can launch a biological attack without fear of being nuked back to God.
Correct, Venezuela can attack us and we will not nuke them. We will attack them with daisy cutters, Mk-84s, thermobaric bunker busters, MOABs, Apaches, Raptors, Hornets, Spirits, Hercules, Reapers, Hellfires, Abrams, Bradleys, these things, and some other shit none of us have even heard of. But we won't use nukes. Keep living in fear though.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Some rouge nation meeting their nonproliferation obligations hits the US with a chemical attack in a major city. Say, one million dead... and we won't nuke them back?
Currently we've got something like 1100 nuclear weapons- many of those are multiple-warhead weapons. Seems to me we only need, at most, a few dozen, mostly for geographic coverage.
Please help metamoderate.
It's nontrivial. KE = mv^2/2 (Joules in the MKS system). M = 2800kg, v=6000k/hr = 1,667m/sec. KE works out to about 3.9 gigajoules, with one metric ton of TNT yielding about 4.18 GJ. So if my arithmetic is correct, this would be more or less like putting a 2,000 lb conventional bomb on the target.
One, and only one, of the following is true:
1. Nuclear weapons are the only possible form of retaliation to a biological attack.
2. You're an idiot.
Of the three Iran is the biggest threat because their is the religious fundamentalism aspect, but the drive for power far outweighs that.
Michael Totten just posted an interview today with a former member of Iran's Revolutionary Guards. This is the latter's insightful perspective:
"If you look more deeply into the thought processes of the people controlling the [Iranian] government, these are people who strongly believe Islam will conquer the world. Every act they commit is in that direction. They don't just want a nuclear bomb to make them untouchable. They think it will be the trigger for Islam conquering the world....
Thirty years ago they were told the Mahdi [i.e., the prophesied redeemer of Islam] wants them to proceed with the nuclear project, and that's why they're not bending. They think they're untouchable and that the Mahdi wants it."
Mustard gas delivered via artillery shells is what you are worried about? Your statements are laughable.
If North Korean troops start pouring through the DMZ, the US military is going to consider all of its contingency plans to keep its ~150,000+ soldiers from being killed or captured, and there is a 100% chance one of those contingency plans includes using nuclear weapons. In all likelihood it is one of the reasons why it hasn't happened yet.
NK is not even remotely a conventional match for US troops. They cannot keep the lights on at night, let alone maintain air superiority against stealth fighters. Nukes would not be considered if NK attempted a land grab.
They are being held in reserve, to make sure NK knows good and well the consequences of building and employing a few fission weapons. This is a carrot/stick move that might encourage them into non-proliferation compliance. We have all the reason in the world to want this, because we would completely steamroll them in a conventional war, and we wouldn't suffer the negative publicity of a nuclear war.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
>Nuclear weapons have turned into something of a penis waving contest.
It would seem to me that you are completely incorrect. Having nuclear weapons is basically your best way to keep the US from interfering overtly with your country.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
"Nucular" is the vernacular in half the country.
So is "ain't" and "googled" and "y'uns", but I'm probably not voting for anyone using words like that in their speeches. Sure, a lot of the country uses 'like' every third word, but that doesn't mean the President can. While I don't think it's correct to say that "nucular" isn't a word, it's not something you should be hearing from a high ranking politician. You're expected to maintain a different style of speech when you're speaking to the entire nation.
Obama's promising the US won't do something that almost everybody was confident the US wouldn't do anyway. It's good PR but that's about it.
Well, good PR is good. USSR cached in on that for a long time with its no-first-use policy, why shouldn't USA do the same?
This declaration has very little effect on actual policy -- in fact, USSR one-upped it decades ago be declaring that it won't use nuclear weapons first in any conflict, however it didn't have much of effect, either.
True importance of this is in its effect on American propaganda directed toward Americans -- government basically tells its propaganda workers in the media to stop claiming that US is willing to establish its control over the rest of the world through the threat of nuclear war. Remember Republicans screaming about nuking Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea(!), etc. in 2001-2002, despite the fact that no one in Bush administration was considering such an action? Now this madness has to stop, and xenophobic propaganda should take more sane forms than "We will nuke all those sandniggers into the stone age!!! Middle East will be a parking lot!".
What, I have to admit, is some serious progress.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
The Bush administration's version of this document specifically declared that the U.S. should be prepared to use nuclear weapons on a first-strike basis, and even against non-nuclear states.
It was never any different under the presidents preceding Bush - U.S. has historically maintained the option of using nuclear strike in response to a conventional attack, unlike the USSR, which had pledged no-first-use for a long time. The present assessment is that U.S. was overestimating the military power of the Warsaw pact, and assuming that all its European NATO allies would be quickly overrun by a Soviet conventional attack, if tactical nukes couldn't be used to counter it.
I take GP to mean that no-one takes Chavez' ambitions of dictatorial rule seriously. So far as I know, there are actually quite a lot of people there happy about and supportive of his economic policies.
"Nucular" isn't an accent.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Oh, absolutely... certainly the ability of the US to *stop* such attacks before they succeed in 2010 is MUCH WORSE than Ethopia's to defend against them in 1930. ::rolls eyes::
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we're immune to attack by chemical weapons here in the US, but your analogy as a rationale is simply laughable.
Posting anon both because of my current career and the content of this post
I grew up of in a rough school. Surprisingly, not once did I ever fear for my safety. You know why? I made two things clear.
1.) I won't bother you if you don't bother me
2.) If you do bother me, I won't throw punches. I won't bloody nose. I will break bones, gouge eyes, bite, stab, bludgeon and shoot... You will leave in an ambulance.
One kid, ONCE tried the tough guy act with me. I believe he ended up with a broken arm, broken nose and they kept him in the hospital a few days to make sure the swelling in his brain would go down.
An overreaction? Possibly. But it worked.
This should be our strategy. No "peacekeeping missions". No "tactical strikes". If you mess with the US, we launch nuclear missles, end of story.
Of course this would mean no more gallivanting around the Middle East and South America and dismantling the military industrial complex (You don't need to spend trillions to keep a large stockpile of first strike nuclear weapons prepped.), so it would never fly.
We promise that we won't nuke you, until we decide that this promise is no longer valid and we need to nuke you. This a PR game, but nothing has changed. It is not like if the US threatened to nuke any country right now.
A monkey who is throwing up a peace sign
Who, exactly, did that? Not the Obama administration with this policy, that's for sure.
To put it in monkey terms, since that seems to discourse trajectory here, our RedWhiteBlue monkey has a *lot* of SkullBashers, in a variety shapes, sizes, and degrees of devastationizingness. In particular, the MegaWhackBat is incredibly devastationizing. Now, noticing that the other monkeys -- even some of the smaller monkeys with smaller arsenals -- have been looking to get their own MegaWhackBat as a safeguard against bein' pushed around or even devastationized by RedWhiteBlue monkey, ol' RWB has done some serious game-theory like thinkin'. This does not involve flashing peace signs or giving up any weapon, including his MegaWhackBat. What he does is he screeches to the other crazy monkeys "Here's the deal; if you don't have a MegaWhackBat, and you agree not to get a MegaWhackBat, I MonkeyPromise I won't use my MegaWhackBat on you, even if we get into some serious SkullBashing (though I will totally use my BigStrongBats). If you have a MegaWhackBat, or look a lot like you're trying to build one, even if you say you aren't, no promises, you might get MegaWhacked."
Now, the truly crazy monkeys, the ones that don't care if they get MegaWhacked or not, this isn't going to affect. The ones that already have their own MegaWhackBats it isn't going to affect either. The ones it *is* going to affect are the ones who were worried that if they didn't have a MegaWhackBat that RWB would hold his over their head. Now they don't have to worry about that, unless they don't trust us, and seriously, who wouldn't?
Tweet, tweet.
We can't just default on our debt and "bankrupt China" because China is far from the only holder of our debt. We would bankrupt almost every government and bank worldwide - almost any institution that holds any amount of money holds it in US Treasury bonds, because even with such low interest they'd lose billions keeping it in cash.
Even if we accept wiping out half the world's wealth, they don't "need" our debt. We need them to keep financing our debt - otherwise our government collapses. When was the last time we had a balanced budget? We can get away with that because the rest of the world buys our debt - which stops the minute we default.
Not to mention the free-falling dollar, as other posters warned about.
DATABASE WOW WOW
so it is ok for israel to have nukes? If the roles were reversed, I think that israel would be doing everything in their power to get nukes as a deterrent to israel. It would be a better strategy to make israel disarm their nukes to get iran to give up on it.
If you want peace, prepare for war.
If Italy, using 1930's technology, was capable of developing, delivering, and deploying chemical weapons in Ethiopia, I will go on record and make the claim that Venezuela could do the same to the US, using 2010's technology.
What, you expect Venezuela to exert air superiority over the US? Chlorine gas only works over very, very short distances.
The US won't nuke you unless you aren't in compliance with nuclear agreements. How many of our enemies *are* in compliance? Is the US in compliance? Who gets to determine who is in non-compliance anyway? Why should anyone believe the US wouldn't nuke someone it that it really wanted to anyway?
These are meaningless words from a belligerent rogue state.
I just found this article in my Gmail RSS bar and I thought it was interesting to see the comments on Obama's new nuclear policy.
I am really surprised of the concept you guys have about Venezuela. I mean, honestly I laughed a bit when reading this. I am from Venezuela, I live here, and seriously, this president, and this country is not going to attack anyone. Do you think a small country, where people don't have constant water supply, or a good electric power infrastructure will attack a huge world potency like the United States of America?
I'm telling you, it just wont happen. This is not like an arab country where people would fight for their beliefs. If we launch a stone to US ground, and you guys send a bunch of last generation jets and soldiers with last generation weapons and suits, we'll get crushed in less than 24 hours. We don't have technology, we don't have the soldiers, we don't have the will, and we don't a reason to do that.
I honestly don't know what is being broad-casted on US TV, but we are no threat to the US. There is no war to be fought. We just have a president that talks WAY too much.
All I can say is that this fits in with that rightwing extremist shop ad you have in your sig. It reinforces the stereotype. Would you walk around in a t-shirt reading something along the lines you just uttered?
" Nucular or go to hell "?
"Praise the lord and pass the nucular bombs"?
"Nucular Choctaw Bingo"?
Of course nucular is just plain wrong no matter which dialect you speak or accent you have. At least that is what I learned at school...
--frank[at]unternet.org
France: 500 warheads
China: 400+ warheads
Britain: 300+ warheads
The best estimates put Israel behind the UK.
They don't dare use nuclear weapons against nuclear nations out of fear of retaliation.
Now they won't use it against non-nuclear nations.
Pussies. Thanks for making our nuclear "arsenal" utterly pointless.
E
Sadly this may only be one of the last steps in the hydrogen bomb era, not a first step...
Most "ultimate" weapons have a shelf life.
Take the history of the battleship for example, between WW-I and WW-II was the era of the the Naval limitation treaties which concentrated on battleships. Of course the war that finally erupted WW-II in the pacific, the nations took great advantage of the aircraft carriers, and in the atlantic, it was submarines. The battleships used during WW-II primarily came from upgraded WW-I battleships.
These types of arms limitation treaties have not be shown to prevent any historical conflicts as they just tend to lock-in the status quo (although poorly crafted treaties may cause big problems like WW-I and WW-II). You only need to start with the Hauge Convention of 1899 declaration II and how it didn't seem to affect chemical weapon usage in WW-I very much.
We may see this a sign that nations are recognizing on emminent transition to a new munitions era. We may see nations start developing a whole new class of armaments after this. MOP or MOAB style bombs or even anti-matter bombs. These new non-nuclear bombs seem to promise to be more useful in the next battle (or war on terror).
Maybe, fortunatly, we get the opportunity bypass the urge to use this generation's strategic weapons that cause massive collateral damage and concentrate on more tactical (and containable) munitions. Strategic weapons are historically only useful to prevent a country from sustaing a war effort (if you want a more "street-fight" analogy, basically a kick in the nuts). For many countries that have nuclear weapons, demoralization by "media" has replaced the need for strategic weapons. Of course there are some other countries (e.g., like North Korea, Sudan), where media influence is insufficient other strategic mechanisms may still be needed, but probably in lower amounts.
Although this might be a glimmer of hope that we may be make to the end of the hydrogen bomb era, who knows what the next era will bring us.
I'm sorry but including Venezuala/Chavez alongside North Korea and Iran is absurd. Here is the difference: Kim jong Il, and Achmenedinijhad are both batfuck crazy. Chavez is just angry because the IMF and World Bank have been assfucking South America for decades and he's tired of the 'status quo', which involves rich Americans and Europeans with their dicks in his ass.
I don't blame him for rattling sabres, and I don't blame him for being pissed off - what the World Bank and the IMF have done to South America should be criminalized as economic warcrimes, because they're killing people en masse by fooling desperate and poorly-educated-at-best politicians into agreeing to national loans they will never repay at exorbitant rates they will never out-earn.
All of South America is getting fucked, the only reason you see Chavez speaking out all the time is because Venezuala is gifted with enough crude oil to escape the spiraling debt the rest of the continent is subject to - since he can escape it, he has the luxury to examine the problem and speak out against it, while the other leaders are scrambling just to survive or pocketing the money themselves and getting the fuck out of Dodge before someone comes gunning for them.
Kim Jong Il and Achmenedinijhad, by contrast, are trying to get nuclear weapons so they can be bully neighbour states without fearing reprocussions from stronger organizations that would disapprove, such as the US and NATO, (Chavez is not beyond sabre rattling that if only he had nuclear weapons people would listen to him, which is partially true).
Don't worry, we are not judging you for not speaking English. We're laughing at half your country for speaking American. ;p
It's not judgment: it's amusement!
"Nucular" is the vernacular in half the country.
Yep - the rednecky, Deliverancey, Faux News-belivey idiot half of the USA. Talking funny doesn't make you a retard, but the converse typically applies.
In the last 40 years, that would be Iraq, twice, and Afghanistan
Not counting airlifts and small skirmishes:
1970s
operations in Cambodia
the Vietnam War
1980s
El Salvador
Columbia
Nicaragua
Panama
Lebanon
Grenada
Honduras
1990s
Persian Gulf War
Yogoslav Wars
Haiti
2000s
Afghanistan
Iraq
This list does not include foreign intervention by way of arms sales, CIA coups, or trade embargoes. And does not including the permanent deployment of 250,000 troops around the globe in over 130 countries with over 700 military bases.
The point being, you can stop and start the dates any time you like. The United States now has the most vast system of military bases in human history, and has invaded other nations at a higher rate than any other, except perhaps for Nazi Germany. We account for over half of all arms sales, and equal the rest of the world combined in military expenditures, despite having 3% of the population and under 3% of the landmass.
We are the empire. Any whining to the contrary is evidence of a painful amount of historical ignorance.
Don't leave me hanging, AC! Which is it?
The internet bubble was tiny and only made up a tiny portion of the 90's.
Try again.
An accent wouldn't change "clear" to "cular". No corresponding change in the pronunciation of the letters in "clear" can give you "cular" without making the English language indecipherable. It isn't due to an "accent" any more than saying "libary" is due to an accent, or any of the other mispronunciations that ignorant people use because they never read, write, or consider the spellings of the words they use. No matter which accent you happen to have, it is possible to both say words correctly, and to mispronounce them.
P.S. vernacular != dialect != accent.
Systemd: the PulseAudio of init systems
You mean dahwlects.
...maybe he pecked it all out in some sort of Morse Code to ASCII converter?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Half your country is morons. Didn't 51% vote for Bush?
Afghanistan is nothing but fucking mud huts, and $500B a year US Army can't keep it stable. Land wars are a thing of the past.
Suppose within 10 years the US military has ABM system that can actually shut down ABMs (they're not quite there yet). This means that in a global armed conflict they have no deterrent. This, in turn, means they can tell Russia what to do under the threat of a nuclear attack. Not a very comfortable place for Russia to be in.
I hope they would include depleted uranium weapons as nuclear weapons, and forbid using this weapons except in the context of a nuclear war against another nuclear power. These hardened shell weapons do not cause nuclear explosions but they do cause nuclear pollution, being made of radioactive waste. They were widely used by the USA and Britain in the Gulf "wars" and elsewhere. If you want to know about the consequences, google "extreme birth defects".
just stupid
Before I read through the posts, I just wanted to mention that Reagan pushed for the total elimination and use of nuclear weapons.
Not sure who tagged this Jimmy Carter, but it should be tagged Ronald Reagan, as he was more progressive about the elimination of Nuclear weapons than Jimmy Carter.
(Not a fan, just trying to keep it factual.)
Just wondering what part of the Western world refers to the Falklands war as the Falklands/Malvinas War. You talk like an American but I don't actually know any Americans who don't recognise the utterly one sided nature of that conflict. Refering to it by the name the Argentinians give it is like calling the war in the Pacific the "Greater East Asia War to establish the Co-prosperity Sphere" or something similar.
So it doesn't matter that this has been said and demonstrated before. It matters that he's the one saying it.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
Like...
If you, dirty no-good rube of a Third World country slam into me in reverse with your ancient exploding wheel-less Ford Pinto on blocks, I promise to only suddenly accelerate into you in my sophisticated First World Yuppie out-of-control Prius?
That's my personal shop, so that makes sense.
As for your stereotype, you'll find it quite wrong. Did you see any Christian decals on my site? I didn't think so.
When everyone around you says "ain't", "y'all", and yes, even "nucular", that's how you speak in those surroundings. I agree that it isn't appropriate from national-level politics, but to pretend that it is somehow ignorant isn't really fair. Rough and unpolished, yes - proof of subpar intelligence? Not even close.
For the record, "y'all" seems to be spreading north - I've heard it uttered many times by "those people" (See? I just made fun of my own stereotype!)
Out of curiosity, where did you go to school? It was definitely pronounced "nucular" here in northern Arkansas - in fact, one of my coworkers here was a reactor engineer on a LA-class nuclear submarine in the US Navy - he pronounces it "nucular".
Just to make you feel better, though, I do have a Gadsden flying on a pole outside my home. My own car is fairly low-key, but I have a teabag decal on the windshield near the corner, and "Molon Labe" in classical Greek on the top of the rear window. It's a '97 Honda Accord, not a 4x4 F-150, though, so you're going to have to adjust your mental image of me at least a little bit.
Learn about Photography Basics.
Yes, and the proportion is evidently rising. 53% voted for Obama.
Learn about Photography Basics.
The US has never defaulted on a national debt in its 230+ year history. It won't start now. We'd be better off jumping back to Eisenhower tax rates to pay interest than in defaulting.
If it's a matter of national security, we'll default on whatever the fuck we have to. Pure economic power is meaningless unless backed with other forms of power, which is why China is so keen as of late to use all the dollars they're hoarding to built up a more sophisticated conventional military force.
Exterminate!
when presidents do things that harm the economy, such as allowing fed chairmen to "lower interest rates."
Are you really that clueless about the workings of the federal reserve that you believe the president is the chairman's boss?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
"most people don't know why they know his name"
I remeber Haile Selassie because the Rastas worship him as the second coming of christ.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Just so you know, the key word in Union of Concerned Scientists isn't 'Scientists.' They may be perfectly right on that article, considering it is about nuclear weapons the chance isn't small, however, I've read so much fearmongering/anti-scientific/just plain wrong bullshit on their site I won't even bother to waste my time reading this one. Assuming you just pulled that up after a run through Google, FWIW, you might want to avoid links to the UCS in the future. You make a much more credible argument when you're not linking to crackpot sites. Posting to the USC about nuclear (or agricultural biotech) is like posting to NaturalNews for a link about medicine.
Maybe you don't understand the concept of dialects so well. In my dialect of English, the word is "nuclear." And, "nucular," isn't just an non-standard variant - it's specifically one used by a poorly educated person.
Dialects encode not just vocabulary and pronunciation variations, but also cultural and social distinctions. A person who says "he be workin every night," communicates not just what intendes to say, but also a lot of information about his ethnicity (and to some listeners, about educational level).
It is a war crime to threaten to use nuclear weapons on Iran.
In times of war, no bars hold, no policies stand ! What's this sham for.
No, you're not really a redneck. You're one of those people who got driven crazy with fear by 9/11.
Or you admire the hot man-on-man/man-on-boy loving that was so much a part of the fabric of society in ancient Sparta.
(Remember that part of 300 where Leonidas calls the Athenians boy lovers? I spat popcorn and soda three rows in front of me. I mean, wow - talk about the irony of historical ignorance in Hollywood script writers. Amirite?)
"Today Venezuela was wiped off the planet by US nukes"
"In other news, Venezuela was labaled as non compliant to nuclear treaties ten minutes ago"
HTTP/1.1 400
The point of terrorist attacks is terror
They're not just killing people... but trying to kill the people who make the American economy and American government run.
That's simply not true. If their aim was economic destruction rather than simply terror, then they would have set of some talcum powder bombs in as many chip fabs as possible and taken them offline for months. No need to kill anyone: our economy at this point is the information and the ability to process it.
They're just lashing out because of economic and social globalization removing all the elasticity out of the social systems where they used to live on the margins, leaving them no place to go or to live how they'd choose to live. Terror is the way they get your attention.
-- Terry
"irrationally afraid of communists"? You mean, other than the track record that two of the main communist nations murdered millions of their own people just last century, and have an ideology that preaches expanding their system worldwide? And the fact that both of those countries (despite the fall of official communism in Russia) also have nukes which are probably, right now, aimed at American cities?
Revive the Constitution.
In other news, "Skunk Announces It Won't Spray In Self-Defense". Also coming up: "Skunk Eaten".
Revive the Constitution.
At least the US can still use them on itself, then. After all, they've not obeyed the NPT either.
This is completely stupid. Not having that policy but actually announcing it to the world. What's next ? Telling other countries the exact circumstances under which a nuclear strike would occur. The ennemy must always be left in doubt over wether the actions he plans would or would not result in the use of a nuke. This way he errs on the side of caution and the USA don't even have to use force to get what they want.
Nixon defaulted on your debt when he took the dollar off the gold standard.
Venezuela is moving away from the dollar and THAT is why they are teh ebils. US money is only worth the money on the front because international trade is in dollars. Except Venezuela, NK, Iraq and Iran are using the Euro for international currency for many trades. This is why the Axis Of Evil include Venezuela. This is why Iraq was invaded. This is why Iran is the next target: they didn't listen to the public punishment beating Iraq got for trying to avoid using the US Dollar.
The reason we are fighting small-scale law-enforcement wars and not great-power megadeath land wars is that our vast nuclear arsenal makes WWII-style great-power wars untenable.
The arsenal circumscribes the ambitions of would-be dictators and, more importantly, the common everyday people who might put them in power. Hitler II, trying to rise to power in a western nation today, will find himself losing support as soon as he starts talking about conquest, because people don't want to be annihilated (please remember, people knew damn well what Hitler was going to do when they _elected_ him). The reason it doesn't work that way for Saddam and Kim is that their countries are too unimportant for anyone to nuke, and everyone knows it, so they get an exemption.
We are living in a time of peace and security, and many of us are completely ignorant and even contemptuous of the guarantor of that security. That is unfortunate, because we might soon do something really, really, really stupid.
When all the nations on earth are prosperous democracies with sustainable birth rates and resource usage patterns, say, hopefully, in 50 or 100 years, then large military arsenals will be unnecessary, and we can put those resources to better use. But let's not put the cart before the horse.
We can't let ourselves fear. When we do, it exacerbates our tendency towards dividing. Fear causes us to think of people as "other" and to care less for them. When that happens "big exceptions" are more likely. This is the crux -- those big exceptions, those instances of people being evil, they were fostered by the fearfulness of the perpetrators.
There are other factors that promote dividing, but fear is perhaps the biggest.
Sure, I carry a knife, though I expect not to need it. The difference between my attitude and the attitude of the fearful is that I'm not motivated to push others away. I don't look for excuses to condemn or devalue. I'm ready to incapacitate you if you mean serious harm, but my primary goal is your health and well-being. Regardless of who you are.
I'll bet money that the US has weapons way beyond nuclear bombs and these new treaties simply reflect that we have options our enemies have never dreamed of in their worst nightmares.
I would have thought this world was way past treatise by now, oh well... and who would even trust the US in a treatise anyway, they broke eveyone ever written with the Natives of its stolen lands
The Battle of Midway was won with nukes?
Midway was won with a combination of good leadership (McCluskey on the tactical level, Spruance and Nimitz on the strategic), good intelligence, Japanese stupidity and luck.
Midway was not however the turning point of the Pacific War. Midway blunted the Japanese offensive and enabled the US Navy to fight them on a more equal footing but the true turning point came a few months later. Guadalcanal is where the remaining skilled Japanese carrier aviators died -- at the battles of the Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz islands. Guadalcanal is where the Allied Navies proved we could beat the Japanese in surface engagements -- though we had to get our asses kicked a few times before we figured out how to do it. Guadalcanal is where we proved that Japanese infantry tactics couldn't match Western firepower and training.
As an aside, Guadalcanal is one of the few campaigns in the 20th century that the US fought on an equal footing with our adversary. We proved that we could take on the Japanese on a level playing field and win. To the best of my knowledge that never happened in Europe -- every time we fought the Germans we did so with superiority in men, material and air/naval power.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Mustard gas delivered via artillery shells is what you are worried about? Your statements are laughable.
What if they just sent terrorists to do it? Yes I agree that launching projectiles at the US is laughable. However, there are 10's of millions of illegal latin american immigrants. What if just 1000 of them were trained to make chemical weapons with domestic products? They are already here, how do you stop it now?
Your scoffing at potential threats is sad.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
According to the merriam-webster online dictionary, "a-jay-sent" is the correct pronunciation. Where did you see the other form?
I am calling BS on this.
A) The USA already did this twice and remains to this day the only country to ever use nukes to kill civilians of a non-nuke nation.
B) The rational for using nukes was public opinion. The USA knew that their public would never support a war in which they would accept such heavy losses, which they would have during a conventional invasion of Japan. For this reason the only option for victory was to kill as many civilians as possible to force Japan to capitulate, which they did.
C) If EVER faced with a similar situation; exactly how long do you think it will take to destroy that newly developed doctrine? About as much time it takes to tear it up.
D) Given that the only two uses ever specified for Nukes are 1) Deterrence, 2) Mutually assured destruction or doomsday, and 3) See "B)" nothing has really changed.
So it is all ready pointless to create said document other than to abstractly give more weight to the nonproliferation treaties, which really is BS other than mentally. Having said all that, I don't think the USA would ever use it on Iran, as I am pretty sure they could wipe the floor with them conventionally (and be left with a mess like Iraq likely). As for NK, that is another matter. I would say of all countries, that is the one place in the world it would be used. The reason for this is that NK is so fortified, and militarized, that any conventional victory by the USA would fail. The troops would get chewed to hell (even if they are winning), and public opinion for the war would go into the toilet, and a new leader would be elected and end the war.
http://www.icasualties.org/
To date about 5000 Americans have died over a period of 9 years in Iraq. Look how much opposition there is to that war, and how much media coverage every time there are causalities. When the USA went to invade Japan, they were pretty much defeated, yet casualty estimates were into the MILLIONS of allies. NK would be not a whole lot different I don't think. For this reason I hope the people of NK get a more moderate leader than old Kim Jon, as if he does something crazy, there is NO WAY the USA is invading that mess, they will turn it into so much blackened glass before that happens. I believe it is the only place in the world that has that danger.
I pledge not to nuke anyone in the club, But I decide who gets to be in the club. Same old, same old
Watch what he DOES, not what he SAYS. He is the consumate politician, which means that at any time his mouth is moving, he is lying. I am getting a serious delay on posting this message, which inflames my natural paranoia even more.
Exactly. Thank you for agreeing that military is an industry. A key industry. Which when Clinton downsized it caused ripple effects that contributed to the 2000-2003 recession. It was military build up that brought us out of it. As it brought us out of the late 70s recession... As it brought us out of the 1939 Great Depression...
Nuclear deterrence via an overwhelming stockpile of missiles is the defense... Maintaining a football team is not deference either. It is both offense AND defense. That also provides many people with jobs and healthcare.
How is this a troll? It wasn't meant as one.