Should the U.S. Use Nuclear Weapons Against Nonnuclear Nations?

April 26, 2010 RSS Feed Print

President Obama has vowed that the United States will not use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear nations that abide by treaty obligations. Some say the policy will strengthen America's moral position; others fear it will weaken national security. Is this revised nuclear policy a good idea?

Yes

Lawrence J. Korb
Senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a former assistant secretary of defense

The purpose of nuclear weapons, or any weapon in the U.S. inventory, is to enhance the security of the United States. By declaring that the United States will not use nuclear weapons against states that do not possess nuclear weapons, President Obama has enhanced the security of the country in two ways. First, since the end of the Cold War, the primary threat from nuclear weapons has not been an all-out exchange with Russia.

READ MORE...

No

Buck McKeon
Representative from California and ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee

While some may admire the president's goal of a world free of nuclear weapons, we need to consider what French President Nicolas Sarkozy reminded us of last fall: "We live in a real world, not a virtual one." America's nuclear deterrent is designed to send a simple message to potential state and non-state aggressors: The cost inflicted upon those who would attack the United States--whether that assault is with...

READ MORE...

What do you think?down arrow

Obama's Nuclear Weapons Policy--Good Idea?

View Results
Tags:
weapons,
North Korea,
nuclear weapons,
Barack Obama,
Iran,
Afghanistan,
national security terrorism and the military

Reader Comments Read all comments (10)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

wow i am in this debate and i am a nuetral person execpt when we are talking about bombs we should not use bombs because they are too powerful and can destroy the population and can hurt inoscent civilians that don't deserve to lose there lives just because power has overtaken someone.

Gunner hamm of IN 9:18AM May 21, 2012

Although the article stated as fact that nuclear weapons are "... the most potent weapon they have in their arsenal...", this point could be intelligently argued by those "in the know". However, the question deserves some reasoned thought and consideration, as nuclear weapons are still a potent deterrant to an attack on this nation. One should just not loose sight of the notion that it is not our only "genie" in the bottle.

Should the United States be dealt a debilitating blow from a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon of mass destruction, I really don't think anyone is going to abide by any silly treaty in dealing with the perpetrators of such an event, once they are identified.

The military of the United States is charged with the defense of this nation and they take the job seriously. Some treaty that limits their ability to defend this country might be viewed as treasonous by it's very nature, and, subsequently, disregarded if the need arose to use whatever resources are necessary to carry out their duty (defend the nation).

If the Commander in Chief fails to carry out his duties with regard to such an event, he could be removed from office for deriliction of duty, unfit to serve, etc.

So, the real question is: Do we want a country that negotiates with it's neighbors in the world from a position of weakness, or, from a position of power? Many a dictator or tyrant would much rather take on a nation that is weak versus one that is mighty. It is survival of the fittest on a world wide national scale.

The choice is ours. Now is the time to decide. Will we be passivist victims, or, will we be ready, trained, and armed to defend this nation?

wnettles of FL 9:55PM May 12, 2010

There are worse and far more deadly weapons out there than nukes, with the chemical age, the scalar frequency weapons, dematerializers and other weapons that would make a nuke look like a firecracker...

Nathian Myers of AZ 2:05PM May 11, 2010

advertisement

Debate Club

Was 2011 One of the Worst Years for the U.S. Government in American History?

Experts debate where 2011 ranks among Washington's worst years.

Latest Video

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

What the GOP Should Do if Obamacare Falls

If Obamacare is struck down by the Supreme Court, the Democrats are responsible for proposing another plan.

Barack Obama and George Bush Show Congress How to Act Like Adults

Obama and Bush are capable of acting like adults. Why isn't Congress?

Mitt Romney Should Put Up or Shut Up on Syria

The Republican candidate has proven he doesn't have the foreign policy credentials necessary to be president.

Mitt Romney's Colorado Disconnect

The presumptive GOP nominee seems unwilling or unable to talk about local issues in a swing state he desperately needs to win.

Donald Trump Makes Kim Kardashian Look Good

At least Kim Kardashian doesn't take herself seriously.

The Vietnam War Still Haunts Us

History rhymes once again, thanks so much.

'Transcripters' Make Birthers Look Smart

Now the fringe right wants the president's university grades to prove he wasn't a good student.

Obama Must Do More to Protect the Intellectual Property Industry

The Obama administration needs to protect the industry's creativity and innovation.

advertisement