Due to the prolific nature of these forums, poster aggression is advised.
This. The cat's already been let out of the bag (nuclear weapons) and there's nothing we can do about it. And trying to get rid of our defense while hopefully pretending the WMD's will suddenly stop existing is NOT the answer at all. No wonder other countries are laughing at us. I'd laugh too. I just hope that they know that we don't support our presidents retarded decisions. Wait a second, why did we vote him into office then...
Hans M. Kristensen, a nuclear expert at the Federation of American Scientists, noted that the new policy highlights the eventual goal of a world without nuclear weapons. However, he said, "the document is surprisingly cautious in terms of the measures that will move us there, because it essentially retains current U.S. nuclear policy."
doesn't the whole "don't nuke countries who don't have nukes" thing kind of go without saying anyway? we wouldn't have any reason to use them on any other country.
Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of you.
The scenario of using nukes against a non-nuclear nation is in retaliation for using chemical or biological attacks. This nearly happened in the first Gulf War. I can tell you that having to M.O.P.P. up at any given time and wait for the gas to roll in is no fun at all. And biological? Forget about it. There's no warning, no way to prep for it; everyone just dies. Kinda like a nuke strike. Personally; I would indeed retain that option. It seems to be the biggest reason Saddam didn't use chemicals on us back then. That counts as deterrent to me.
... he does not want to be remembered as the President who opened the gates to the barbarians.
And would still be a deterrent now, even with the new policy. We thought Iraq was making nukes, so it would be nukeable.
So... let's not nuke countries that don't have nukes, because you're not supposed to bully the poor kids.But, it's okay to nuke countries with nukes so that they can nuke us back and we can start a nuclear winter! Yay! \o/God I hate politics.
At any rate, I believe it is a mistake to announce anything other than the very barest minimum when talking to the world about your own defenses and capabilities.
Wrong conflict; we were liberating Kuwait. Nothing to do with believing they had nukes. We knew they didn't; the threat was bio/chemical. Now, however, the policy states we definitely would NOT nuke them (if the same conflict played out now) even if they attacked us with bio/chem; as they were not expected abide by the non-proliferation treaty as a nuclear nation. They weren't a nuclear nation, nor were we taking any action (at that time) in response to any nuclear ambitions.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/timetable.htm
Total Members: 4939