Home > Opinion > New Obama Nuclear Policy Could Spur Proliferation, Harm America

New Obama Nuclear Policy Could Spur Proliferation, Harm America

Reader Comments
Back to article

Sometimes history repats itself, the mere thought of obama's proposal is pure stupidity. Our country is currently in a state of war, and the president of iran has cleary stated that his goal is to wipe the United States from the map. I don't know, but just the thought that there's a country out there whose sole purpose is to eliminate the U.S. Is frightening.
The fact also remains, that Iran is a country which may or may not have nuclear capabilites. The idea of renouncing our nuclear firepower is frankly idiotic. It kinda defeats the purpose of what our soilers are out there fighting for...

Salazar of CA 7:32AM May 14, 2010

You don't use an elephant gun to hunt ants! We have 5,000, count'em, 5000 nuclear warheads! A country uses chemical or biological weapons and we respond by using a nuke!? I see one writer spoke of saving so many lives in WWII by using nukes on Japan, as he pointed out it was for the greater good of saving American servicemen's lives, a good intention but like all good intentions it paved the road to hell. There is still radiation levels in those cities even to this day from those bombs. The fallout from those bombs were also carried by winds to other countries that were our quote, unquote allies at the time. So what you are proposing is that if Iran or North Korea got radical enough to attack this country with a chemical or bio weapon, even a tactical nuke used in response poses a radiation threat to our allies in the region. We have more than enough conventional weapons that will cause massive destruction to show our response to being attacked. By your reasoning, when 9-11 happened, we should have nuked Afghanistan come hell or high water. If attacked with a nuke then I say respond in kind because once the first one is launched then we will have completed the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction)that has been avoided for so long and thankfully so.

Tony of AR 1:33PM May 13, 2010

"To make peace, you must prepare for war" Enough said.

Aaron O of IA 2:00PM May 11, 2010

That if a fella is surrounded by packs of rabid, drooling dogs.... Well, the bigger the stick you have - the better.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 1:01PM April 28, 2010

We had scientists, that helped design and build the nuclear bombs that were used against Japan, protest their use. The cost of not using them was estmated at 500,000 more American servicemen's lives if they were forced to invade the Japanese islands. The fanatical Japanese were training their women, children and old men how to fight with pitch forks, clubs and any other tool that could be used as a weapon against our solders. The radical governments and warlords of today are no less a threat to the U.S. then Japan was then.The motto and flag that states "Don't tread on me" is a lesson from our nation's past and should be remembered. Will we use or not use nuclear weapons if we are attacked with weapons of mass distruction should always be in the minds of our advisaries or it is no longer a deturent and we become a paper tiger.To take that option away from our chiefs of staff is like sending our solders into combat with no bullets in the guns and forcing them to use shovels rakes and clubs to fight our enemies because to use their guns became politically incorrect!

Lee Hansen of MI 3:59PM April 27, 2010

We may live in a virtual world as Sarkozy said, but it's impossible that is sometime in the future we might be able to live in a reasonable world? If so, when will add me and how should we begin to act with reason rather than with the warring traditions that humanity has perpetuated?

Bob O'Connor 11:17AM April 27, 2010

Everyone if fed up with Obama's arrogance and ignorance. This Chicago "community organizing" thug should be sent packing!
He assaults Arizona for enforcing our immigration laws, something he and the other "vote" grabbers of D.C. aren't willing to do. "We mustn't upset the "Hispanic's" and lose those votes. Just let them destroy our country, it's O.K. as long as I get re-elected.
Throw this bum out!
Oh! Wait, that would make Big Joe (Don't have a clue) Biden our new President wouldn't it?
Just forget everything I said.

James of KY 8:56AM April 27, 2010

Shouldn't the question be "Should the US Renounce the Use of Nuclear Weapons Against Non-nuclear Powers?" in view of that whole Hiroshima/Nagasaki thing?
Setting aside that snide remark, DeeToo raises some important issues. I can see the wisdom of reserving the option of retaliation with nuclear weapons in response to nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks against the US, but if the perpetrators are terrorists or non-state actors, against whom do we retaliate?

James of VA 6:59PM April 26, 2010

"The reason the Middle East want nukes is because their neighbor Israel has them."
Israel is widely suspected of having them, but they've never officially confirmed or denied it. That's part of Israel's "calculated ambiguity." It serves them well.
"The days of dogfights, huge troop movements across borders are passed - at least for a while"
I'm sure the nations of Iraq, Afghanistan and even Georgia will be pleased to hear that.
I think what Obama is trying to do is give NPT nations a REASON not to seek nukes. The basic logic is sound: less nuclear material in circulation, the more difficult is is for terrorists to obtain.
The problem with his approach is one of honor: we can SAY we won't nuke an NPT nation, and change our minds when it serves our purposes. They know that. There are also no such promises from other nuclear nations. If a nation HAS nukes, they can be pretty confident no one will nuke them first, honor be damned.
So Obama's approach isn't likely to deter anyone. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
That's a problem: it only takes two sufficiently armed nuclear powers (think India and Pakistan) to go at it and end humanity, and 95% of our species wouldn't even have a say in the matter.
We must either get rid of the nukes (not happening) or get rid of their targets (cities and nations - also not happening). Otherwise, some nut WILL eventually push the Button.
In geopolitics, might doesn't make right; might makes right irrelevant. Relying on the forbearance of dictators isn't a sound foreign policy.

Rich of CO 6:26PM April 26, 2010

Did you disagree with Reagan? And he thought it was a good idea while the cold war was still on.
People have amnesia - they forget what the world used to be, where moderate used to line up, and the changed nature of what defense issues are today.
We are not dealing with a strategic problem that is nation-to-nation. The dangers are more related to rogue states, terrorists, and failed security measures/disciplines. The smaller the amount of nuclear materials out there, the lower the probability that something will go wrong.
The reason the Middle East want nukes is because their neighbor Israel has them. We also need to state that either no one has nukes in that regions, or allow everyone. If Israel wants Iran NOT to have them - they cannot have a pile themselves.
The days of dogfights, huge troop movements across borders are passed - at least for a while. We need to focus our strategy on the areas of highest risk, and spend less on things that will do little to protect us. Other nations thta rely on our umbrella can help us pay for whatever they need and we want to provide.
Obama knows that moral leadership is equally important to leadership in weapons. We need to use diplomacy as well as muscle. And we don't need to be able to blow the world up 185 times - we can probably do just as well detsroying ourselves 50 times over.....
Maher is right - if we are unable to give up on the "American Empire" and all the expenses of keeping it in place, we will never be able to give up the debt. At around one trillion dollars a year - we could pay off a lot of our debt pretty fast. Countries with large standing armies always collapse under the weight of the cost of this, and from the soldiers trained to kill who return home and cannot live peacefully and thus cause civil unrest.

DeeToo of SC 3:25PM April 26, 2010