President Obama has now come up with new guidelines under which the US will operate.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.

But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

MORE here:

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

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This should instill a new feeling of hope in our liberal friends.

For those of us that realize the US has never been attacked because we were too strong, we might not like the "CHANGE" that he is giving us.

I don't think that any of our enemies believe that we won't nuke them if they attack us with biological or chemical weapons and for once they are right.

Chuck, you're saying that the US has never been attacked?

"....For those of us that realize the US has never been attacked because we were too strong, we might not like the "CHANGE" that he is giving us."

That's a different stance to that with which you defended America's attacks on sovreign nations.

To the point of the OP.... It sounds like diplomatic window dressing to me. He doesn't rule out nuclear retaliation.....just with those nations that wouldn't do anything anyway.

I note Russia doesn't embrace the attitude for itself.

No foreign armed force has invaded a state of the USA since 1813.

I don't think that any of our enemies believe that we won't nuke them if they attack us with biological or chemical weapons and for once they are right.

I think you are wrong about this UG. Given BO's unwavering drive to weaken the US, I believe that is exactly what they will think.

The strength of the US nuclear deterrence was that thugs around the world never knew when we would use it. Now we have announced to every regime under what circumstances they can attack the US or they can use chemical or biological weapons and the US won't respond utilizing our nuclear capability. So now, for example, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez don't have to be concerned about spending capital on nuclear weapons or defense because they can plan to get some smallpox, some anthrax or other types of chemical weapons into the US and be safe and secure that BO won't retaliate even if he finds out who did it.

This is consistent with his recent moronic determination regarding the Secret Service new rules of engagement. Secret Service agents are not allowed to shoot any attacker who has a prior criminal record. How are they suppose to know whether someone has a prior criminal record if they're taking a shot at a government official? He continues to confirm that he has absolutely no idea what he is doing.

No foreign armed force has invaded a state of the USA since 1813.

I would suggest that the Pearl Harbor attack was an invasion even though Hawaii was not yet a state for it was our military that was specifically targeted. Furthermore, it was the US response to said attack that has successfully served as a deterrent for other nations to not attack. However, now BO has determined that he should change all of that.

I don't think that any of our enemies believe that we won't nuke them if they attack us with biological or chemical weapons and for once they are right.

I think you are wrong about this UG. Given BO's unwavering drive to weaken the US, I believe that is exactly what they will think.

The strength of the US nuclear deterrence was that thugs around the world never knew when we would use it. Now we have announced to every regime under what circumstances they can attack the US or they can use chemical or biological weapons and the US won't respond utilizing our nuclear capability. So now, for example, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez don't have to be concerned about spending capital on nuclear weapons or defense because they can plan to get some smallpox, some anthrax or other types of chemical weapons into the US and be safe and secure that BO won't retaliate even if he finds out who did it.

This is consistent with his recent moronic determination regarding the Secret Service new rules of engagement. Secret Service agents are not allowed to shoot any attacker who has a prior criminal record. How are they suppose to know whether someone has a prior criminal record if they're taking a shot at a government official? He continues to confirm that he has absolutely no idea what he is doing.

Do you think that Obama will turn out to be an even bigger pus than Jimmy Carter?

I don't think that any of our enemies believe that we won't nuke them if they attack us with biological or chemical weapons and for once they are right.

I think you are wrong about this UG. Given BO's unwavering drive to weaken the US, I believe that is exactly what they will think.

The strength of the US nuclear deterrence was that thugs around the world never knew when we would use it. Now we have announced to every regime under what circumstances they can attack the US or they can use chemical or biological weapons and the US won't respond utilizing our nuclear capability. So now, for example, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez don't have to be concerned about spending capital on nuclear weapons or defense because they can plan to get some smallpox, some anthrax or other types of chemical weapons into the US and be safe and secure that BO won't retaliate even if he finds out who did it.

This is consistent with his recent moronic determination regarding the Secret Service new rules of engagement. Secret Service agents are not allowed to shoot any attacker who has a prior criminal record. How are they suppose to know whether someone has a prior criminal record if they're taking a shot at a government official? He continues to confirm that he has absolutely no idea what he is doing.

Do you think that Obama will turn out to be an even bigger pus than Jimmy Carter?

Far far far more dangerous to the US.

Chuck, you're saying that the US has never been attacked?

"....For those of us that realize the US has never been attacked because we were too strong, we might not like the "CHANGE" that he is giving us."

That's a different stance to that with which you defended America's attacks on sovreign nations.

No, I am not saying the US has never been attacked (full stop).

Read what I said and quit trying to play your silly semantic games. They never work out very well for you.

I don't think that any of our enemies believe that we won't nuke them if they attack us with biological or chemical weapons and for once they are right.

I think you are wrong about this UG. Given BO's unwavering drive to weaken the US, I believe that is exactly what they will think.

The strength of the US nuclear deterrence was that thugs around the world never knew when we would use it. Now we have announced to every regime under what circumstances they can attack the US or they can use chemical or biological weapons and the US won't respond utilizing our nuclear capability. So now, for example, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez don't have to be concerned about spending capital on nuclear weapons or defense because they can plan to get some smallpox, some anthrax or other types of chemical weapons into the US and be safe and secure that BO won't retaliate even if he finds out who did it.

This is consistent with his recent moronic determination regarding the Secret Service new rules of engagement. Secret Service agents are not allowed to shoot any attacker who has a prior criminal record. How are they suppose to know whether someone has a prior criminal record if they're taking a shot at a government official? He continues to confirm that he has absolutely no idea what he is doing.

Do you think that Obama will turn out to be an even bigger pus than Jimmy Carter?

Far far far more dangerous to the US.

Agreed.

It is disgusting.

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions.

Obama - he was naive enough to think he could close Gitmo by signing a piece of paper and setting a deadline and now this? Libs are just can't think things though, can they?

1. The only way to make nuclear weapons obsolete is to come up with something even more terrifying. Even then, they would still have some use. We still use knives even though guns sort of made them "obsolete".

2. As soon as no one has nuclear weapons, then eveyone will race to build the next one and be first. You think NK, Iran and others want one now, just wait until the US, China, Russia, France, UK, Israel, etc don't have one. The first country to possess a nuclear weapon the 2nd time around will be top dog.

^ I'm sure there will be plenty to spare... how many targets can there be?

As for something more deadly than an atomic bomb..? Maybe only a bigger atomic bomb...

or a genetic weapon.

Unless you envisage a USA run by underground bunkers for 100 years as something worth fighting for, anything that reduces the number of them floating around is great.

The world already knows not to <deleted> with the USA, and nobody does! You have enough guns and troops to secure YOUR borders... the trouble starts when you go abroad!

Better start building those factories again... export nation here we come.. after all.. by 2050, you will cease to be a WASP country... and then of course.. with more Spanish speakers than English... seems logical to merge with Mexico/S.America...

China: 100-200 warheads.

France: Approximately 350 strategic warheads.

United Kingdom: Less than 160 deployed strategic warheads.

Russia: 2,787 strategic warheads[1], approximately 2,000 operational tactical warheads, and approximately 8,000 stockpiled strategic and tactical warheads.

United States: 2,126 strategic warheads[1], approximately 500 operational tactical weapons, and approximately 6,700 reserve strategic and tactical warheads.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nucl...aponswhohaswhat

India: Up to 100 nuclear warheads.

Israel: Between 75 to 200 nuclear warheads.

Pakistan: Between 70 to 90 nuclear warheads.

North Korea: Has separated enough plutonium for up to 12 nuclear warheads.

Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine inherited nuclear weapons following the Soviet Union’s 1991 collapse, but returned them to Russia.

^ I'm sure there will be plenty to spare... how many targets can there be?

As for something more deadly than an atomic bomb..? Maybe only a bigger atomic bomb...

or a genetic weapon.

Unless you envisage a USA run by underground bunkers for 100 years as something worth fighting for, anything that reduces the number of them floating around is great.

The world already knows not to <deleted> with the USA, and nobody does! You have enough guns and troops to secure YOUR borders... the trouble starts when you go abroad!

Better start building those factories again... export nation here we come.. after all.. by 2050, you will cease to be a WASP country... and then of course.. with more Spanish speakers than English... seems logical to merge with Mexico/S.America...

China: 100-200 warheads.

France: Approximately 350 strategic warheads.

United Kingdom: Less than 160 deployed strategic warheads.

Russia: 2,787 strategic warheads[1], approximately 2,000 operational tactical warheads, and approximately 8,000 stockpiled strategic and tactical warheads.

United States: 2,126 strategic warheads[1], approximately 500 operational tactical weapons, and approximately 6,700 reserve strategic and tactical warheads.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nucl...aponswhohaswhat

India: Up to 100 nuclear warheads.

Israel: Between 75 to 200 nuclear warheads.

Pakistan: Between 70 to 90 nuclear warheads.

North Korea: Has separated enough plutonium for up to 12 nuclear warheads.

Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine inherited nuclear weapons following the Soviet Union’s 1991 collapse, but returned them to Russia.

Cannot agree that the U.S. reducing the number of its tactical warheads is 'great'. It merely weakens the defenses of a country that is becoming more and more a popular target. Some here feel that it is deserved (I certainly don't), but that is not the point. The U.S. defense mechanism is being dismantled by an amateur politician who believes in the ferry-tale that we can all get along. His answer - simply redistribute the wealth and become socialistic thereby punishing individual achievement. That, Mr. AlexLah, is what is disgusting.

No foreign armed force has invadeda state of the USA since 1813.

that's not correct PB. the Arabs did... in 1973 during the 'Yom Kippur' war.

Obama is turning out to be a disappointment indeed. Venturalaw said it all when he advised us to look at the nut jobs that he surrounds himself with. I guess it is true that a leopard cannot change its spots.

Cannot agree that the U.S. reducing the number of its tactical warheads is 'great'. It merely weakens the defenses of a country that is becoming more and more a popular target. Some here feel that it is deserved (I certainly don't), but that is not the point. The U.S. defense mechanism is being dismantled by an amateur politician who believes in the ferry-tale that we can all get along. His answer - simply redistribute the wealth and become socialistic thereby punishing individual achievement. That, Mr. AlexLah, is what is disgusting.

the list of enemies who plan to invade the Greatest Nation on Earth™ is very long. e.g. Hugo Chavez el Bolivariano who is after texan oil, Schwulibert Kraxlhuber and his cavallerie from the mountains of Southern Bavaria, the Swiss 27th fleet commanded by Admiral UBS, descendants of Genghis Khan with mongolian hordes who are targeted Fort Knox, Bophuthatswana wants to eradicate Las Vegas and its casinos, Hamas is ganging up with Fidel and Raul Castro eager to change South Florida into a marxist-islamic state which applies Shariya Law, the Christmas Island which claim Minnesota because there; snow in winter, and... and... and...

Actually, venturalaw is refering to terrorism against American citizens and interests abroad..., but you already knew that.

Obama is turning out to be a disappointment indeed. Venturalaw said it all when he advised us to look at the nut jobs that he surrounds himself with. I guess it is true that a leopard cannot change its spots.

I always said Obama was a douchebag & I just don't understand how these douchebags keep getting into power, I mean seriously, this is the 5 or 6th douchebag in a row, whats next for the USA?

Probably another DB.

I just don't understand how these douchebags keep getting into power, I mean seriously, this is the 5 or 6th douchebag in a row, whats next for the USA?

Probably Another douche bag as you say

After all Left Wing...Right Wing...what is the difference it is the same bird.

Elected the same way...with the same cash backing both wings.

It will taste the same if the same recipe is used over & over again.

The two major parties are both jokes & just give the sheeple the illusion of choice.

When they add ..None Of The Above...To the presidential ballot then we will have a choice.

When they dissolve the Electoral College & count votes then we will have a choice.

When they limit the campaign contributions from the same top ten contributors of both parties then maybe we will have a choice. But we know this would be worked around quickly

Anarchy is starting to look good.

LOL, At least everyone here seems to agree on that!

Obama is turning out to be a disappointment indeed. Venturalaw said it all when he advised us to look at the nut jobs that he surrounds himself with. I guess it is true that a leopard cannot change its spots.

I always said Obama was a douchebag & I just don't understand how these douchebags keep getting into power, I mean seriously, this is the 5 or 6th douchebag in a row, whats next for the USA?

What kind of person is motivated to run for a job where the other side (and perhaps the press) will attack you and your family relentlessly for years (even if you lose), about 40% of the country will automatically hate you from Day One, you will be beholden to the ones that manage to help you raise the $1 Billion needed to run a national campaign? Apparently douchebags.

^Indeed.

Actually, venturalaw is refering to terrorism against American citizens and interests abroad..., but you already knew that.

yeah right! that's what Venturalaw meant. that's why he deems it necessary to keep nukes galore to use against terrorists who target american citizens abroad.

quote: "Cannot agree that the U.S. reducing the number of its tactical warheads is 'great'. It merely weakens the defenses of a country that is becoming more and more a popular target."

next intelligent comment please

Have you ever heard of Iran.

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions.

Obama - he was naive enough to think he could close Gitmo by signing a piece of paper and setting a deadline and now this? Libs are just can't think things though, can they?

1. The only way to make nuclear weapons obsolete is to come up with something even more terrifying. Even then, they would still have some use. We still use knives even though guns sort of made them "obsolete".

2. As soon as no one has nuclear weapons, then eveyone will race to build the next one and be first. You think NK, Iran and others want one now, just wait until the US, China, Russia, France, UK, Israel, etc don't have one. The first country to possess a nuclear weapon the 2nd time around will be top dog.

Hey hey hey Koheesti, you should have a talk with Lieutenant Chuck D who was personally involved with agreements supplying defensive weapons ( Maybe like cluster bombs, bunker busters and DU munitions). But has no idea if Israel has nukulaar bombs or has the capacity to produce them.

You also forgot to mention India, Pakistan and North Korea (Alleged) by the way....to have some.

But please don't worry that Osama Obama is limiting the use of your frightening toys.

He can even allow the use of them if the US was a victim of a cyber attack.

The final review report, which was delayed for three months over policy disputes within the administration, stated that a "fundamental role" of nuclear weapons is to deter strategic nuclear attacks. That leaves open the option for use of nuclear arms to retaliate for a biological- or chemical-weapons attack, or a cyber-attack that cripples computer networks.

Quote from here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/a...rates-nuke-foes

So you pro terror people can get back to sleep, knowing all is fine with your WMD toys.

Actually, venturalaw is refering to terrorism against American citizens and interests abroad..., but you already knew that.

yeah right! that's what Venturalaw meant. that's why he deems it necessary to keep nukes galore to use against terrorists who target american citizens abroad.

quote: "Cannot agree that the U.S. reducing the number of its tactical warheads is 'great'. It merely weakens the defenses of a country that is becoming more and more a popular target."

next intelligent comment please

Given your extensive education and superior Aryan race , what is your solution? Kristallnacht won't work here.

The U.S. has not been invaded for quite some time, so it would appear that strength based upon capability has successfully deterred those nations who may have thought the way Japan did long ago.

But please don't worry that Osama Obama is limiting the use of your frightening toys.

He can even allow the use of them if the US was a victim of a cyber attack.

Take your medicine and give us a call in the morning.