Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

[Redleader34]

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.

Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.

White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.

Mr. Obama’s new strategy is bound to be controversial, both among conservatives who have warned against diluting the United States’ most potent deterrent and among liberals who were hoping for a blanket statement that the country would never be the first to use nuclear weapons.

Mr. Obama argued for a slower course, saying, “We are going to want to make sure that we can continue to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons,” and, he added, to “make sure that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances.”

The release of the new strategy, known as the Nuclear Posture Review, opens an intensive nine days of nuclear diplomacy geared toward reducing weapons. Mr. Obama plans to fly to Prague to sign a new arms-control agreement with Russia on Thursday and then next week will host 47 world leaders in Washington for a summit meeting on nuclear security.

The most immediate test of the new strategy is likely to be in dealing with Iran, which has defied the international community by developing a nuclear program that it insists is peaceful but that the United States and its allies say is a precursor to weapons. Asked about the escalating confrontation with Iran, Mr. Obama said he was now convinced that “the current course they’re on would provide them with nuclear weapons capabilities,” though he gave no timeline.

He dodged when asked whether he shared Israel’s view that a “nuclear capable” Iran was as dangerous as one that actually possessed weapons.

“I’m not going to parse that right now,” he said, sitting in his office as children played on the South Lawn of the White House at a daylong Easter egg roll. But he cited the example of North Korea, whose nuclear capabilities were unclear until it conducted a test in 2006, which it followed with a second shortly after Mr. Obama took office.

“I think it’s safe to say that there was a time when North Korea was said to be simply a nuclear-capable state until it kicked out the I.A.E.A. and become a self-professed nuclear state,” he said, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency. “And so rather than splitting hairs on this, I think that the international community has a strong sense of what it means to pursue civilian nuclear energy for peaceful purposes versus a weaponizing capability.”

Mr. Obama said he wanted a new United Nations sanctions resolution against Iran “that has bite,” but he would not embrace the phrase “crippling sanctions” once used by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. And he acknowledged the limitations of United Nations action. “We’re not naïve that any single set of sanctions automatically is going to change Iranian behavior,” he said, adding “there’s no light switch in this process.”

In the year since Mr. Obama gave a speech in Prague declaring that he would shift the policy of the United States toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, his staff has been meeting — and arguing — over how to turn that commitment into a workable policy, without undermining the credibility of the country’s nuclear deterrent.

The strategy to be released on Tuesday is months late, partly because Mr. Obama had to adjudicate among advisers who feared he was not changing American policy significantly enough, and those who feared that anything too precipitous could embolden potential adversaries. One senior official said that the new strategy was the product of 150 meetings, including 30 convened by the White House National Security Council, and that even then Mr. Obama had to step in to order rewrites.

He ended up with a document that differed considerably from the one President George W. Bush published in early 2002, just three months after the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Bush, too, argued for a post-cold-war rethinking of nuclear deterrence, reducing American reliance on those weapons.

But Mr. Bush’s document also reserved the right to use nuclear weapons “to deter a wide range of threats,” including banned chemical and biological weapons and large-scale conventional attacks. Mr. Obama’s strategy abandons that option — except if the attack is by a nuclear state, or a nonsignatory or violator of the nonproliferation treaty.

The document to be released Tuesday after months of study led by the Defense Department will declare that “the fundamental role” of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attacks on the United States, allies or partners, a narrower presumption than the past. But Mr. Obama rejected the formulation sought by arms control advocates to declare that the “sole role” of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack.

There are five declared nuclear states — the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. Three states with nuclear weapons have refused to sign — India, Pakistan and Israel — and North Korea renounced the treaty in 2003. Iran remains a signatory, but the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly found it in violation of its obligations, because it has hidden nuclear plants and refused to answer questions about evidence it was working on a warhead.

In shifting the nuclear deterrent toward combating proliferation and the sale or transfer of nuclear material to terrorists or nonnuclear states, Mr. Obama seized on language developed in the last years of the Bush administration. It had warned North Korea that it would be held “fully accountable” for any transfer of weapons or technology. But the next year, North Korea was caught aiding Syria in building a nuclear reactor but suffered no specific consequence.

Mr. Obama was asked whether the American failure to make North Korea pay a heavy price for the aid to Syria undercut Washington’s credibility.

“I don’t think countries around the world are interested in testing our credibility when it comes to these issues,” he said. He said such activity would leave a country vulnerable to a nuclear strike, and added, “We take that very seriously because we think that set of threats present the most serious security challenge to the United States.”

He indicated that he hoped to use this week’s treaty signing with Russia as a stepping stone toward more ambitious reductions in nuclear arsenals down the road, but suggested that would have to extend beyond the old paradigm of Russian-American relations.

“We are going to pursue opportunities for further reductions in our nuclear posture, working in tandem with Russia but also working in tandem with NATO as a whole,” he said.

An obvious such issue would be the estimated 200 tactical nuclear weapons the United States still has stationed in Western Europe. Russia has called for their removal, and there is growing interest among European nations in such a move as well. But Mr. Obama said he wanted to consult with NATO allies before making such a commitment.

The summit meeting that opens next week in Washington will bring together nearly four dozen world leaders, the largest such gathering by an American president since the founding of the United Nations 65 years ago. Mr. Obama said he hoped to use the session to lay down tangible commitments by individual countries toward his goal of securing the world’s nuclear material so it does not fall into the hands of terrorists or dangerous states.

“Our expectation is not that there’s just some vague, gauzy statement about us not wanting to see loose nuclear materials,” he said. “We anticipate a communiqué that spells out very clearly, here’s how we’re going to achieve locking down all the nuclear materials over the next four years.”

Suprised I didn't see Shep or Stuart posting this, anyway I'm not surprised this happened, just wondering why Obama didn't wait till post midterm elections.

[Redleader34]

Could you change the title to Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

[MKSheppard]

I just noticed this. But anyway brilliant dickheaded move by Obama. This will destroy deterrence further.

[Guardsman Bass]

Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.

I can understand wanting to have a range of options, but is it really wise to openly announce this and thus give potential enemies an incentive to find out what an "acceptable biological/chemical attack" and its response might be? If a state were to do this and be identified, the US would more or less be at war with them, so why limit your options from the get-go?

White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.

This makes it sound like he's trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth - throwing a bone to the non-proliferation and anti-nuke crowds, while not entirely handicapping himself in terms of potential response to a WMD.

It had warned North Korea that it would be held “fully accountable” for any transfer of weapons or technology. But the next year, North Korea was caught aiding Syria in building a nuclear reactor but suffered no specific consequence.

It's a bit too late for that, I think. Unless Obama is openly willing to authorize stop-and-seizure of North Korean ships that might be carrying the stuff, and impounding it if they find it aboard.

“I don’t think countries around the world are interested in testing our credibility when it comes to these issues,” he said. He said such activity would leave a country vulnerable to a nuclear strike, and added, “We take that very seriously because we think that set of threats present the most serious security challenge to the United States.”

But they just did test its credibility! Hell, countries have been flouting it and US retribution for decades (including Pakistan, which got hit with US sanctions after it developed nukes for a while.

[eion]

I just noticed this. But anyway brilliant dickheaded move by Obama. This will destroy deterrence further.

Deterrence to whom? Russia really isn't a direct enemy anymore, and don't we have more than 20 times the active warheads of the next potential nuclear enemy? (India, Pakistan). How many is enough?

As far as I can see in this article, the big thing Obama said is that we're not going to use a Gatling gun against someone that comes at us with a pointy stick. I'd say that's a pretty rational and common sense policy.

[adam_grif]

As far as I can see in this article, the big thing Obama said is that we're not going to use a Gatling gun against someone that comes at us with a pointy stick. I'd say that's a pretty rational and common sense policy.

You could also look at it another way - if you threaten to use the gattling gun when people use pointy sticks against you, nobody is going to use pointy sticks against you unless they don't think your threat is genuine.

This is a fairly rational policy.

[eion]

As far as I can see in this article, the big thing Obama said is that we're not going to use a Gatling gun against someone that comes at us with a pointy stick. I'd say that's a pretty rational and common sense policy.

You could also look at it another way - if you threaten to use the gattling gun when people use pointy sticks against you, nobody is going to use pointy sticks against you unless they don't think your threat is genuine.

This is a fairly rational policy.

But if you sit around polishing your Gatling gun all day while the rest of the world just has their pointy sticks you're going to

A) Be a really big target
B) Look like a total dick

Better to just say, "I won't use this Gatling gun unless you come at me with an assault rifle." Then the world is less likely to develop assault rifles, because they know you have a HUGE deterrent that they could never match.

[Sea Skimmer]

Deterrence to whom? Russia really isn't a direct enemy anymore,

The Russians would sure as fuck not agree with the idea that the US-Russia are no longer rivals. Just ask Stas.

and don't we have more than 20 times the active warheads of the next potential nuclear enemy? (India, Pakistan). How many is enough?

Ever heard of say, China? Rather large and well armed nation in the orient with hundreds of nuclear weapons and a massive effort to modernize those assets, along with the whole rest of its military underway.

As far as I can see in this article, the big thing Obama said is that we're not going to use a Gatling gun against someone that comes at us with a pointy stick.

Which is reducing deterrence; glad to see you admit it! The US police was ANY attack with NBC weapons leads to a nuclear counter attack. Moving away from that is weakening deterrence and you can't spin that any other way. It is openly telling the world that now a margin exists in which they can get away with that shit when one used not to exists. Why the hell would we ever want to make this policy?

I'd say that's a pretty rational and common sense policy.

I’d say you don’t know what the threats are in the first place, so you cannot make any informed conclusion on the subject. Furthermore, the US could just retain its stated assured retaliation policy but not act on it if subject to only a very minor attack and that’d only damage our credibility AFTER someone first took that leap of risk. That is a far better situation then killing our credibility FIRST and ensuring that we face the consequences.

[eion]

Deterrence to whom? Russia really isn't a direct enemy anymore,

The Russians would sure as fuck not agree with the idea that the US-Russia are no longer rivals. Just ask Stas.

Are rivals the same as mortal enemies? We are economic rivals with Japan, but we don't have ICBMs trained on Nagasaki still, as far as I know.

and don't we have more than 20 times the active warheads of the next potential nuclear enemy? (India, Pakistan). How many is enough?

Ever heard of say, China? Rather large and well armed nation in the orient with hundreds of nuclear weapons and a massive effort to modernize those assets, along with the whole rest of its military underway.

Our number one importer? The one's terrified of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan? Sure, but the policy clearly says the U.S. won't attack NON-NUCLEAR countries with nuclear weapons if they are in compliance with the NPT, unless they unleash air-borne Ebola or something. China has nukes, so Beijing still has a listing in the target book in some missile silo in Nebraska.

As far as I can see in this article, the big thing Obama said is that we're not going to use a Gatling gun against someone that comes at us with a pointy stick.

Which is reducing deterrence; glad to see you admit it! The US police was ANY attack with NBC weapons leads to a nuclear counter attack. Moving away from that is weakening deterrence and you can't spin that any other way. It is openly telling the world that now a margin exists in which they can get away with that shit when one used not to exists. Why the hell would we ever want to make this policy?

The US still has the largest conventional military in the world in terms of destructive ability. And we want this to be policy to deter countries from creating nuclear weapons in the first place. If they know they are safe from nuclear attack if they refuse to develop nuclear weapons and comply with the NPT why would they develop nukes in the first place?

I'd say that's a pretty rational and common sense policy.

I’d say you don’t know what the threats are in the first place, so you cannot make any informed conclusion on the subject. Furthermore, the US could just retain its stated assured retaliation policy but not act on it if subject to only a very minor attack and that’d only damage our credibility AFTER someone first took that leap of risk. That is a far better situation then killing our credibility FIRST and ensuring that we face the consequences.

Iran, N. Korea, Terrorists, maybe China at some future date if our relations sour or they attack Taiwan in some foolish move. The first three will never be swayed by anything the US says, but may be deterred if they lose funds or get pressure from other nations. The forth we still out-nuke 10:1. Exactly how much of a numerical advantage do you need to feel satisfied you can destroy all life on this planet consistently? Saying we’ll attack you with nukes if you attack us conventionally just forces the other guy to develop nukes to counter your threat, and then we’re in another cold war biggest dick contest.

And if it doesn’t work out, some future President can get all macho and change the policy as unilaterally as Obama did.

[Sea Skimmer]

Are rivals the same as mortal enemies? We are economic rivals with Japan, but we don't have ICBMs trained on Nagasaki still, as far as I know.

We have a formal military alliance with Japan and extensive forces stationed in Japan. Japan is formally under the US nuclear umbrella. Please don’t waste my time with such fucking stupid comparisons. Meanwhile we are also in an alliance called NATO specifically to oppose Russia, and we provide the main nuclear capability of that alliance. US owned nuclear weapons are still stored on NATO bases for use by NATO tactical aircraft.

Our number one importer?

Yeah you know before you go claiming that economics make a war impossible, please remember that people said the exact same thing before WW1. In fact the world economy was more integrated in 1914 then it was in the 1980s. ‘Globalization’ in the modern day has actually just been a process of finally reestablishing all the links the world already created and blew to hell. It doesn’t mean jack fuck in terms of preventing a war, if anyone ever thought that far ahead we’d never have wars in the first place.

The US still has the largest conventional military in the world in terms of destructive ability. And we want this to be policy to deter countries from creating nuclear weapons in the first place. If they know they are safe from nuclear attack if they refuse to develop nuclear weapons and comply with the NPT why would they develop nukes in the first place?

Wow you just answered your own question. The US is the strongest conventional military power….. so people need to nuke us or use chemical or bioweapons to break even or win. Fighting conventionally is a certain loss. This is why the US policy was a hard line that any such use would be treated the same as a nuclear attack. We wanted to completely close down that avenue of approach. Meanwhile Russia announced not long ago that it is restoring tactical nuclear weapons to its naval forces specifically because of NATO conventional superiority! Such weapons had previously been withdrawn from deployment by both the US and Russia since 1992.

Iran, N. Korea, Terrorists, maybe China at some future date if our relations sour or they attack Taiwan in some foolish move. The first three will never be swayed by anything the US says, but may be deterred if they lose funds or get pressure from other nations. The forth we still out-nuke 10:1. Exactly how much of a numerical advantage do you need to feel satisfied you can destroy all life on this planet consistently?

Your fucking retarded if you think nukes could have ever killed all human life on earth. Even in the peak of the cold war that was not possible. You could easily use up several thousand nukes against a large country like China or Russia, and beyond that a considerable margin of warheads is required for maintenance, reserves and all the warheads we’d shoot which would never arrive on target because the delivery system failed or function or was destroyed by enemy action. It was not for the hell of it that the US and Russia deployed over thirty thousand warheads apiece in the Cold War.

Saying we’ll attack you with nukes if you attack us conventionally just forces the other guy to develop nukes to counter your threat, and then we’re in another cold war biggest dick contest.

This isn't just about nukes, it’s also about chemical and biological attacks idiot. Obama says we won’t nuke people who attack us with those weapons, which is fucking openly inviting attack. If the US still had working chemical weapons that might make slight sense; but we destroyed those a considerable time ago and certainly have no desire to resume production.

And if it doesn’t work out, some future President can get all macho and change the policy as unilaterally as Obama did.

If it doesn’t work out? So you think its fine if a policy change leads to chemical and biowarfare attacks on the US because we can just change our minds latter? Great fucking thinking man, great thinking. You prove the point again. This weakens deterrence, no if and or buts about it. But why you would even argue otherwise, I don’t known. Of course Obama wants to weaken deterrence, because his stated goal is to eliminate deterrence completely! Do you not understand this?

[Thanas]

There is a considerable political push in European Nations (e.g. Germany) to get rid of Nuclear US Weapons. This might very well be partly a result of that push.

In any case, does the US have enough money for the production of new nukes right now?

[Ryan Thunder]

There is a considerable political push in European Nations (e.g. Germany) to get rid of Nuclear US Weapons.

Why's that?

[Sea Skimmer]

There is a considerable political push in European Nations (e.g. Germany) to get rid of Nuclear US Weapons. This might very well be partly a result of that push.

People have been pushing for that since… forever? It might well happen but it doesn’t even mean that much because those nations damn well know if they can still exploit US nuclear protection without doing any damn work or hosting any warheads. But the fact that such warhead deployments have already persisted a full 20 years after the Cold War supposedly ended really does show the state of the world. Though all and all it is really easy to deploy the warheads like that, since vaults were built into specific hardened aircraft shelters to store them (four warheads per vault too, in case the airfield survives long enough to get off four sorties per plane!) removing any need for regular warhead handling and all the security that requires.

In any case, does the US have enough money for the production of new nukes right now?

Of course it does. We shoot cruise missiles at mud huts, nukes are not that big a deal. The entire nuclear component of the US defense budget is something like 25 billion… out of over 500 billion. That includes stuff like repainting missile silos, and operating SSBNs besides just keep warheads in functional condition.

In fact one thing Obama has not cut is funding for in his latest defense budget is an entirely new nuclear weapons component plant at Kansas City (the old plant is basically too outdated to be worth rebuilding). This plant will produce all the pieces required to make a nuclear weapon except the actual fissile material. Cost is estimated at 1.2 billion over 20 years to build and operate the plant. The costs of actually making components will depend on how many new nukes are built. The fissile component plant at Oak Ridge meanwhile is being refurbished. Assembly/disassembly work of each plants components will then be done at Pantex in Texas, which is also getting funding for long term upgrades.

See Obama loves hair splitting, so he’s made a big public deal about ‘no new nuclear weapon designs’ while still funding these new facilities which can simply make new warheads with existing designs. It’s really fucking stupid all and all, since new nuclear warhead designs would be much safer, but Obama is at least not stupid enough to think nukes will completely go away while he is in office. Thus these plants are still funded.


And for another sign of healthy world nuclear relations, Russia is warning it may not follow the START treaty if it doesn't feel like it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8605805.stm

[LMSx]

And for another sign of healthy world nuclear relations, Russia is warning it may not follow the START treaty if it doesn't feel like it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8605805.stm

So...yeah?

3. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from this Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

Sounds like they're just making public noises to re-affirm the right they've always already had. Posturing.

[MKSheppard]

So hurm. In 1991; we sent through backchannels to Saddam that we had some nuclear armed F-111s sitting on alert with his name on it if he chemmed or bioed our troops.

He didn't gas us in '91, despite his army having the most combat experience in gas attacks in the world since 1918; and the fact that gassing us would have increased our casualties big time.

The Obama Doctrine makes doing that impossibul. The world will get more dangerous.

[Temujin]

To me this just seems like more of Obama's usual centrist approach at trying to please everyone a little, while pleasing no one; not to mention coming across as weak and ineffectual.

[Andrew J.]

So hurm. In 1991; we sent through backchannels to Saddam that we had some nuclear armed F-111s sitting on alert with his name on it if he chemmed or bioed our troops.

He didn't gas us in '91, despite his army having the most combat experience in gas attacks in the world since 1918; and the fact that gassing us would have increased our casualties big time.

The Obama Doctrine makes doing that impossibul. The world will get more dangerous.

First, source? Second, there are other options. We could have done a lot more to Iraq than we did in 91 with just conventional forces.
Never mind that there aren't really many other countries with extensive WMD programs or experience that we're likely to be launching ground invasions into anytime soon, and an exception could always be made if the circumstances seemed.

[eion]

We have a formal military alliance with Japan and extensive forces stationed in Japan. Japan is formally under the US nuclear umbrella. Please don’t waste my time with such fucking stupid comparisons. Meanwhile we are also in an alliance called NATO specifically to oppose Russia, and we provide the main nuclear capability of that alliance. US owned nuclear weapons are still stored on NATO bases for use by NATO tactical aircraft.

Fine, Finland. The US is economic rivals with Finland. Do we have nukes pointed at Helsinki? And while NATO's original purpose may have been to oppose the Soviet Union, it's current purpose is to oppose any attack against its member states, a volatile enough situation that could be compared to the state of treatied Europe pre-WWI: one match will set it all off uncontrollable.

You've still yet to demonstrate that China is as ideologically determined towards our destruction as the USSR was at the height of the cold war, or that Russia is likewise as ideologically determined to do so. I think they are far more worried about their neighbors than us. Superpowers tend to behave pretty reasonably military-wise towards each other because otherwise they don't last long.

Yeah you know before you go claiming that economics make a war impossible, please remember that people said the exact same thing before WW1. In fact the world economy was more integrated in 1914 then it was in the 1980s. ‘Globalization’ in the modern day has actually just been a process of finally reestablishing all the links the world already created and blew to hell. It doesn’t mean jack fuck in terms of preventing a war, if anyone ever thought that far ahead we’d never have wars in the first place.

Really, more integrated? I'd have to see evidence of that considering I can go to the grocery store and basically buy items from all over the world, or go online and connect with anyone anywhere and do business.

The US is the strongest conventional military power….. so people need to nuke us or use chemical or bioweapons to break even or win. Fighting conventionally is a certain loss. This is why the US policy was a hard line that any such use would be treated the same as a nuclear attack. We wanted to completely close down that avenue of approach. Meanwhile Russia announced not long ago that it is restoring tactical nuclear weapons to its naval forces specifically because of NATO conventional superiority! Such weapons had previously been withdrawn from deployment by both the US and Russia since 1992.

Which under this policy would invalidate their protection from nuclear attack as they would then be a nuclear power. In other words, as I understand it, this announcement affects our nuclear policy towards other nuclear powers (India, Russia, China, N. Korea, etc.) by exactly zero percent. We still have all the weapons we did before, we just won’t develop any new ones.

And Obama left a loophole for Bio & Chem attack if I understand it correctly. I imagine we'll hear a lot more about this during and after the big nuclear conference next week.

Your fucking retarded if you think nukes could have ever killed all human life on earth. Even in the peak of the cold war that was not possible. You could easily use up several thousand nukes against a large country like China or Russia, and beyond that a considerable margin of warheads is required for maintenance, reserves and all the warheads we’d shoot which would never arrive on target because the delivery system failed or function or was destroyed by enemy action. It was not for the hell of it that the US and Russia deployed over thirty thousand warheads apiece in the Cold War.

Could it be because no one had good intelligence as to how many the other side had, so they built as many as humanly possible in a desperate act to stave of cataclysmic destruction at the hands of such wonder weapons as SLAM and the SSBNs?

This isn't just about nukes, it’s also about chemical and biological attacks idiot. Obama says we won’t nuke people who attack us with those weapons, which is fucking openly inviting attack. If the US still had working chemical weapons that might make slight sense; but we destroyed those a considerable time ago and certainly have no desire to resume production.

Any military unethical and determined enough to use Bio & Chem attack is going to be very difficult to dissuade from attack in the first place. This is probably the only point I could agree with though, as the destructive ability of Bio/Chem weapons ranks second only to nuclear weapons, but again I believe Obama left a loophole in for a massive B/C attack.

If it doesn’t work out? So you think its fine if a policy change leads to chemical and biowarfare attacks on the US because we can just change our minds latter? Great fucking thinking man, great thinking. You prove the point again. This weakens deterrence, no if and or buts about it. But why you would even argue otherwise, I don’t known. Of course Obama wants to weaken deterrence, because his stated goal is to eliminate deterrence completely! Do you not understand this?

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I'm willing to sacrifice millions of my countrymen in the pursuit of a political ideal. I'm the worst kind of liberal idealist: THE BLOODTHIRSTY KIND!
Or perhaps I just think if we see that downgrading “deterrence” only forces more countries to acquire nuclear weapons we might perhaps change the policy before it comes to Armageddon.
And Obama doesn’t want to eliminate deterrence; he wants to eliminate nuclear weapons. Do you really think the threat of thermonuclear war has made the world a safer place? We haven’t had a world war since their development, but we’ve had nearly constant proxy wars waged by all the nuclear powers against each other through third parties.

[Samuel]

So hurm. In 1991; we sent through backchannels to Saddam that we had some nuclear armed F-111s sitting on alert with his name on it if he chemmed or bioed our troops.

He didn't gas us in '91, despite his army having the most combat experience in gas attacks in the world since 1918; and the fact that gassing us would have increased our casualties big time.

The Obama Doctrine makes doing that impossible. The world will get more dangerous.

It wouldn't make the world more dangerous- just casulties heavier which is still bad.

The US is economic rivals with Finland. Do we have nukes pointed at Helsinki?

Really? Finland? Do you think all nations that produce the same goods as we do are economic rivals?

And while NATO's original purpose may have been to oppose the Soviet Union, it's current purpose is to oppose any attack against its member states, a volatile enough situation that could be compared to the state of treatied Europe pre-WWI: one match will set it all off uncontrollable.

The problem with WW1 was that there were 2 alliances- NATO does not currently have an opposite to match it.

You've still yet to demonstrate that China is as ideologically determined towards our destruction as the USSR was at the height of the cold war, or that Russia is likewise as ideologically determined to do so.

We had nukes pointed at the USSR throughout the cold war (and they at us), even after they changed their policy towards one of peaceful coexistance.

Really, more integrated? I'd have to see evidence of that considering I can go to the grocery store and basically buy items from all over the world, or go online and connect with anyone anywhere and do business.

They could do that in 1910 as well. Don't forget that Africa and Asia were all part of the world economy at that time. I can bring up that stats if you wish.

Could it be because no one had good intelligence as to how many the other side had, so they built as many as humanly possible in a desperate act to stave of cataclysmic destruction at the hands of such wonder weapons as SLAM and the SSBNs?

Given that we knew where the missile silos were (hence we could target them) I'm going to have to say no.

Do you really think the threat of thermonuclear war has made the world a safer place? We haven’t had a world war since their development, but we’ve had nearly constant proxy wars waged by all the nuclear powers against each other through third parties.

Said proxy wars have killed less than the world wars. There were about 20 million dead in the first and 40 million in the second- 60 million deaths in the space of 50 years.

[LMSx]

Isn't lumping "NBC" as a group essentially like saying "the 747 took off with the help of four jet engines, and a hamster on a wheel"? Threatening the use of nuclear weapons in response to bio or chemical attack is simply not credible both through disparity of effect and through the existing, overwhelming deterrent of America's conventional weapon superiority.

The US gave up basically nothing in exchange for a positive incentive for being compliant with the NPT.

So hurm. In 1991; we sent through backchannels to Saddam that we had some nuclear armed F-111s sitting on alert with his name on it if he chemmed or bioed our troops.

I would love to know of what special benefit nuclear weaponry would have over conventional forces. Because otherwise, it sounds like you're saying should Saddam have used chemical weapons, America would have nuked Baghdad. Because a conventional missile strike just doesn't quite rally the populace behind the invading country like a nuclear strike!

[Samuel]

I would love to know of what special benefit nuclear weaponry would have over conventional forces. Because otherwise, it sounds like you're saying should Saddam have used chemical weapons, America would have nuked Baghdad. Because a conventional missile strike just doesn't quite rally the populace behind the invading country like a nuclear strike!

They are much more powerful and so if he is in a bunker it would kill him. Of course there is the massive collateral damage so I am hoping that we didn't actually threaten something so blatantly insane.

[Broomstick]

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.

I'd prefer the term "more active threats" to "greater threats". A conflict between the US and Russia or China could, in theory, escalate to a much more serious level than that possible from a "terrorist organization" (at least in the present world). However, an attack by terrorists is much more likely than an attack by one of the great powers upon another great power.

Mr. Obama’s new strategy is bound to be controversial, both among conservatives who have warned against diluting the United States’ most potent deterrent and among liberals who were hoping for a blanket statement that the country would never be the first to use nuclear weapons.

I wish people wouldn't say such butt-ignorant shit like that. We HAVE been the first to use nuclear weapons. In fact, we are so far the ONLY nation to use nukes on another nation. The best we could do for such people is to pledge to never again be the first to use them.

Mr. Obama argued for a slower course, saying, “We are going to want to make sure that we can continue to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons,” and, he added, to “make sure that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances.”

Properly implemented, I could get behind that policy - nukes are extreme weapons, they should only used in very extreme circumstances.

In the year since Mr. Obama gave a speech in Prague declaring that he would shift the policy of the United States toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, his staff has been meeting — and arguing — over how to turn that commitment into a workable policy, without undermining the credibility of the country’s nuclear deterrent.

It's a nice soundbite, but the genie is out of the bottle - nukes exist. They will continue to exist. If they stopped existing some nutjob (I'm looking at you, Shep) would want to make them exist again.

I can understand wanting to have a range of options, but is it really wise to openly announce this and thus give potential enemies an incentive to find out what an "acceptable biological/chemical attack" and its response might be? If a state were to do this and be identified, the US would more or less be at war with them, so why limit your options from the get-go?

You are correct, this is arguably a bad policy move. On the other hand, I think most people in the US don't really want to nuke anyone else. It's not like anyone is warm and fuzzy (with a few exceptions) over the last time we dropped the bomb.

So, if we say something like "If you attack us biologically we'll nuke you" and someone attacks us with a bioweapon that fizzles and doesn't kill anyone, or perhaps just a few people, do we REALLY want to start a nuclear war over that? Does anyone think that is a good idea? But that's what the Bush policy calls for. There is also some merit in having a graduated series of response commensurate with the actual threat/damage done.

On the other hand, if someone lets loose a smallpox strain 90% lethal... well, that could potentially kill many more people than a few nukes. That might justify a nuclear response.

White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.

This makes it sound like he's trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth - throwing a bone to the non-proliferation and anti-nuke crowds, while not entirely handicapping himself in terms of potential response to a WMD.

Yes, that's exactly what he's trying to do! He's a politician, that's what they DO! Why do you expect him to be fundamentally different than any other politician on earth?

But they just did test its credibility! Hell, countries have been flouting it and US retribution for decades (including Pakistan, which got hit with US sanctions after it developed nukes for a while.

Yes, well, if we aren't going to follow our own fucking policy maybe we should just admit it, hmm?

As for Pakistan - they're not our friends, but they are definitely India's enemy, and vice versa. The most likely target for Pakistani nukes is India, and vice versa. They are deterrent to each other at this point. Even IF Pakistan wanted to bomb the US I'm not even sure they have a means of getting such a device over the US territory, much less doing so unnoticed and unopposed. Personally, I think we have more to worry about the Norks trying to get the means to threaten Hawaii and Alaska more than we have to worry about Pakistan, or India, in regards to such things.

Which is reducing deterrence; glad to see you admit it! The US police was ANY attack with NBC weapons leads to a nuclear counter attack. Moving away from that is weakening deterrence and you can't spin that any other way. It is openly telling the world that now a margin exists in which they can get away with that shit when one used not to exists. Why the hell would we ever want to make this policy?

Because if a small group from country XYZ tried to release, say, the Black Plague and wound up just killing themselves we'd look like total tools for nuking said country XYZ? Boy, you think US rep is in the shitter now?

Worse yet - if that group turned out to be a bunch of batshit crazies from, say, Iowa are we really supposed to nuke Iowa in retaliation?

In reality, the US has show a bizarre tolerance for having its own people murdered abroad - attacks on various military groups/boats in particular occured without retaliation. No doubt that did encourage further attacks. After all, it sure looked like you could kill US marines or navy without consequence!

Oh, whoops - you mean you will get pissed off if 16 acres of Manhattan is turned into a smoldering hole in the ground? Who would have thought!

Furthermore, the US could just retain its stated assured retaliation policy but not act on it if subject to only a very minor attack and that’d only damage our credibility AFTER someone first took that leap of risk. That is a far better situation then killing our credibility FIRST and ensuring that we face the consequences.

We've damaged our credibility already in regards to our stated plans for retaliation and what we've actually done in the past.

Are rivals the same as mortal enemies? We are economic rivals with Japan, but we don't have ICBMs trained on Nagasaki still, as far as I know.

Well, we already nuked that city once...

The US still has the largest conventional military in the world in terms of destructive ability. And we want this to be policy to deter countries from creating nuclear weapons in the first place. If they know they are safe from nuclear attack if they refuse to develop nuclear weapons and comply with the NPT why would they develop nukes in the first place?

Well, some people think God or Allah is on their side and will magically protect them from other peoples' nukes even as they launch their own.

There's also the matter that the US is not the only nuclear weapon capable nation on the planet, and hasn't been for, oh, what, 65 years or so? It's not just us everyone else is worried about.

Are rivals the same as mortal enemies? We are economic rivals with Japan, but we don't have ICBMs trained on Nagasaki still, as far as I know.

We have a formal military alliance with Japan and extensive forces stationed in Japan. Japan is formally under the US nuclear umbrella. Please don’t waste my time with such fucking stupid comparisons.

Ah, yes, lovely thought, that - if the Norks nuke Tokyo by treaty the US is obligated to go to war on their behalf. Our own damn fault, really, making them agree to that after we demanded their abject and total surrender. (Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time).

This is, of course, assuming whatever Japanese survive don't swim across the strait and kill the Norks with their bare hands before we get there. The Japanese have already survived two nuclear bombs, arguably they are the most psychologically equipped to deal with another such attack. Not that I ever want to see such a thing happen.

Meanwhile we are also in an alliance called NATO specifically to oppose Russia, and we provide the main nuclear capability of that alliance. US owned nuclear weapons are still stored on NATO bases for use by NATO tactical aircraft.

Actually, NATO was developed to oppose the Soviet Union which, may I point out, no longer exists. Our relationship with the former members of that Union, including Russia, is now significantly different than it used to be. That doesn't mean we're best buddies - we aren't - but it's stupid to pretend that the situation hasn't changed. On top of that, many of our allies who used to want nukes in Europe are now reconsidering their position. It is possible that at some future point those weapons may be either sent back to the US, or disposed of entirely.

Yeah you know before you go claiming that economics make a war impossible, please remember that people said the exact same thing before WW1. In fact the world economy was more integrated in 1914 then it was in the 1980s. ‘Globalization’ in the modern day has actually just been a process of finally reestablishing all the links the world already created and blew to hell. It doesn’t mean jack fuck in terms of preventing a war, if anyone ever thought that far ahead we’d never have wars in the first place.

And given that this is the second time globalization has resulted in fiscal fuck up I sort of question if we should ever try it again, you know? Because WWI and WWII were so much fucking fun!

Iran, N. Korea, Terrorists, maybe China at some future date if our relations sour or they attack Taiwan in some foolish move. The first three will never be swayed by anything the US says, but may be deterred if they lose funds or get pressure from other nations. The forth we still out-nuke 10:1. Exactly how much of a numerical advantage do you need to feel satisfied you can destroy all life on this planet consistently?

Your fucking retarded if you think nukes could have ever killed all human life on earth. Even in the peak of the cold war that was not possible. You could easily use up several thousand nukes against a large country like China or Russia, and beyond that a considerable margin of warheads is required for maintenance, reserves and all the warheads we’d shoot which would never arrive on target because the delivery system failed or function or was destroyed by enemy action. It was not for the hell of it that the US and Russia deployed over thirty thousand warheads apiece in the Cold War.

Well, OK, so you won't kill everyone on the planet - but life is really going to suck[/] for the survivors. Is there really that much difference between "kill everyone on the planet" and "make life so horrible the living will envy the dead"?

Don't you realize that nuclear war could turn an advanced, industrialized country into a hellhole that makes the current mess in Haiti look like a nice vacation spot? You know, there's a reason that, despite all the wars large and small of the 20th and 21st Centuries that after WWI nations developed taboos against certain weapons, like chemical, biological, and nuclear ones? That doesn't mean they'll never be used, but the bar for them is vastly higher than for conventional warfare. Personally, I don't view that taboo as a bad thing.

If it doesn’t work out? So you think its fine if a policy change leads to chemical and biowarfare attacks on the US because we can just change our minds latter?

We had that policy as we still had a bioattack - anthrax in the mail, remember? It killed a bunch of people and crippled some, too. Did we nuke anyone? No. Of course, we never (so far as is publicly known) found out who did it!

In the past it was assumed it would have to be a government that did such things. That is no longer true. Maybe we should re-evaluate our thing on these things, hmm?

There is a considerable political push in European Nations (e.g. Germany) to get rid of Nuclear US Weapons. This might very well be partly a result of that push.

In any case, does the US have enough money for the production of new nukes right now?

We still have a monster military budget - bigger than the entire GDP of many nations. We might have to reshuffle things a bit, but yes, the US most certainly could produce new nukes right now if the government wanted to do it.

[LMSx]

I would love to know of what special benefit nuclear weaponry would have over conventional forces. Because otherwise, it sounds like you're saying should Saddam have used chemical weapons, America would have nuked Baghdad. Because a conventional missile strike just doesn't quite rally the populace behind the invading country like a nuclear strike!

They are much more powerful and so if he is in a bunker it would kill him. Of course there is the massive collateral damage so I am hoping that we didn't actually threaten something so blatantly insane.

Yeah, that's basically the formulation I was trying to get at....special net benefit? The more power you use to dispatch him, the more collateral damage is incurred. And at some point his ability to hide in his super-bunker becomes meaningless if there's no one left to carry out Saddam's orders as the country collapses around him.

On the other hand, if someone lets loose a smallpox strain 90% lethal... well, that could potentially kill many more people than a few nukes. That might justify a nuclear response.

To be fair, in the article I think the White House specifically carved out an exemption for this sort of future biological enhancement.

[eion]

The US is economic rivals with Finland. Do we have nukes pointed at Helsinki?

Really? Finland? Do you think all nations that produce the same goods as we do are economic rivals?

As opposed to military rivals, yeah. What's wrong with that? You don’t think Finland would like to outsell the U.S. in Biotech exports? Vietnam is probably a good example of a militarily more-or-less neutral nation towards the U.S. They may not have forgotten the Vietnam War (least of all because they won), but they sure like trading with us.

And while NATO's original purpose may have been to oppose the Soviet Union, it's current purpose is to oppose any attack against its member states, a volatile enough situation that could be compared to the state of treatied Europe pre-WWI: one match will set it all off uncontrollable.

The problem with WW1 was that there were 2 alliances- NATO does not currently have an opposite to match it.

Anybody could start a whole war with NATO though. If Iraq invaded Turkey all of the other NATO members would be forced to respond. What happens if someone detonates a nuclear device in a NATO member country? What if it was detonated by a terrorist group with ties to a government?

You've still yet to demonstrate that China is as ideologically determined towards our destruction as the USSR was at the height of the cold war, or that Russia is likewise as ideologically determined to do so.

We had nukes pointed at the USSR throughout the cold war (and they at us), even after they changed their policy towards one of peaceful coexistance.

Really, more integrated? I'd have to see evidence of that considering I can go to the grocery store and basically buy items from all over the world, or go online and connect with anyone anywhere and do business.

They could do that in 1910 as well. Don't forget that Africa and Asia were all part of the world economy at that time. I can bring up that stats if you wish.

The ability to ship bananas from Africa to the United states via ship in a few weeks, while awesome, rather pales in comparison to being able to get pizza delivered from Chicago to anywhere in the world in less than a day. And the ability of the telegraph, while game changing, is a little different than being able to instantly transmit CAD drawings for a part and have that part made on the other side of the world, or now with rapid-prototypers a sample part can be sent back just as instantly to let the customer actually hold a model of their component. And what about satellite communications? The fact that I can go anywhere in the world, and as long as I can see sky, I can call anyone else in the world who can see sky, did they have that in 1910?

Or are we talking about economic partnerships and the like? In which case, would the Cold War not taking place and forcing everyone to join either Side A or Side B not have sped up the reforming of those partnerships?

Could it be because no one had good intelligence as to how many the other side had, so they built as many as humanly possible in a desperate act to stave of cataclysmic destruction at the hands of such wonder weapons as SLAM and the SSBNs?

Given that we knew where the missile silos were (hence we could target them) I'm going to have to say no.

Knowing a guy has a revolver, and knowing how many rounds he has loaded, and in his bandoleer, and in his back-pocket, are two very different pieces of information. And missile subs (SSBNs) main virtue is their stealth and nearly guaranteed ability to launch no matter what happens to their home base. Unfounded beliefs in the disparity in the number of bombers and missiles existed at different times during the Cold War. If either side had had perfect information, nuclear chess would play a lot more like normal chess than it did.

Do you really think the threat of thermonuclear war has made the world a safer place? We haven’t had a world war since their development, but we’ve had nearly constant proxy wars waged by all the nuclear powers against each other through third parties.

Said proxy wars have killed less than the world wars. There were about 20 million dead in the first and 40 million in the second- 60 million deaths in the space of 50 years.

Death tolls are one way to measure the impact of war. However even using another metric is pointless because there are too many variables to predict with any accuracy what the world would be like without nuclear weapons.

[Samuel]

And given that this is the second time globalization has resulted in fiscal fuck up I sort of question if we should ever try it again, you know? Because WWI and WWII were so much fucking fun!

Yeah, autarky worked so well for Romania and North Korea didn't it? I mean, really, what is the worst that could happen if we stopped trading and investing in the third world- aside from their economies collapsing of course.

WW2 occured during a massive decrease in globalization- protectionism, the Great Depression, Import substitution and the USSR sort of made it drop like a stone.

As opposed to military rivals, yeah. What's wrong with that? You don’t think Finland would like to outsell the U.S. in Biotech exports?

As long as we get more of a benefit from their imports than we loss in exports due to competition it isn't a net loss for the US.

If Iraq invaded Turkey all of the other NATO members would be forced to respond. What happens if someone detonates a nuclear device in a NATO member country? What if it was detonated by a terrorist group with ties to a government?

I'm not seeing how that would be a global war- especially since we essentially had a scenario like that for the past 9 years.

Unfounded beliefs in the disparity in the number of bombers and missiles existed at different times during the Cold War. If either side had had perfect information, nuclear chess would play a lot more like normal chess than it did.

The beliefs of the politicans are not the same as the beliefs of the military. I'm pretty sure the unfounded beliefs and "bomber gap" were manufactured by the opposition party to make the incumbants look bad.

Death tolls are one way to measure the impact of war. However even using another metric is pointless because there are too many variables to predict with any accuracy what the world would be like without nuclear weapons.

Yes, humanity would suddenly desist from fighting a major war because... what? They learned their lesson? It took 21 years from the first to the second. Why is it not reasonable to assume the change in behavior is due to a change in the situation?