Skip to comments.Obama must decide degree to which U.S. swears off nuclear weapons
Posted on 03/05/2010 10:36:54 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
President Obama's top national security advisers will within days present him with an agonizing choice on how to guide U.S. nuclear weapons policy for the rest of his term.
Does he substantially advance his bold pledge to seek a world free of nuclear weapons by declaring that the "sole purpose" of the U.S. arsenal is to deter other nations from using them? Or does he embrace a more modest option, supported by some senior military officials, that deterrence is the "primary purpose"?
The difference may seem semantic, but such words, which will be contained in a document known as the Nuclear Posture Review, have deep meaning and could dramatically shift nuclear policy in the United States and around the world. The first option would scale back the arsenal's war role, potentially leading to a smaller U.S. stockpile and taking weapons off alert. The second option would be less of a change, holding out the nuclear threat but still permitting a reduction in weapons. The president was briefed on the document this week and requested additional intermediate options, officials say.
Senior administration officials have indicated that the review is likely to roll back some George W. Bush policies, such as threatening the use of nuclear weapons to preempt or respond to chemical or biological attacks. The review will also point to new ways to cut the Pentagon's stockpile of roughly 5,000 active nuclear warheads, they say.
Obama's decision on the sensitive issue of U.S. "declaratory policy," officials and outside experts say, will help determine whether the document is regarded as a far-reaching shift from the Bush administration's version released in 2001. Lower-level officials trying to craft the language engaged in fierce discussions about how far and fast the administration could alter course without alarming allies.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Still no NSS.
Still winging it.
Ever since the 1960s, when the Left has talked about nuclear disarmament, what they really meant is that the US should disarm. For the 1960s radicals, they hoped to weaken the US and usher in change here like in Vietnam or Cuba.
I wonder whether Obama is beginning to think of himself as a one-term president, and that this year might be the only year he has a Rat congress, so that if he wishes to achieve nuclear disarmament, amnesty for illegals, government control of health care, government control over energy use, etc., he’s got to do these things now, or never.
Obama Treason PING!
“Obama Treason PING!”
Obama and Treason are redundant.
I think Obama is probably smart enough to realize that he is the leader of a bunch of dumb a55es that haven’t figured out that the day the last nuclear weapon is decomissioned is the day that WW3 begins. Shortly after that is the day we draft the liberals and their children and send them off to fight the war that has been on pause since 1945.
It’s amazing how much damage one undercover Black Panther can do to the USA in 4 years
What gives any president the right to make a unilateral decision of this magnitude?
Obama doesn’t own these weapons.
WE, the people, own them.
The nation has an immense financial investment in the development, manufacture, and storage of these weapons and an even larger investment in them as part of our defense strategy for 65 years. The security of the nation and the lives of millions of Americans may well be, and most likely are, at stake here.
Yet one pisant, undocumented, Marxist assumes the authority to just say we will unilaterally disarm and rely on the good nature of our enemies for security?
We absolutely must wrest control of Congress from the democrat crazies to help staunch the tidal wave of destruction Obama has brought to America.
Thanks Jet Jaguar.
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
'Goals' 4-45 can be found here or at many other sites through a web search for "45 goals":
Just to clarify for any idiot liberal lurkers out there who might be giggling at this assertion, Obama of course was never a Black Panther. However, he basically shares their politics: 'Black Liberation' revolutionary communism. All the facts you need at my FR Home page. I don't want to distract this important thread by putting it up here.
“Senior administration officials have indicated that the review is likely to roll back some George W. Bush policies, such as threatening the use of nuclear weapons to preempt or respond to chemical or biological attacks.”
The racist pig is begging for a chem/bio attack.
Yes, absolutely. That's what he meant by saying he'd rather be a "good" one term president. Good to a traitor means bringing the Great Satan, the imperialist USA, to heel.
It should be obvious to even the most casual observer that Obama is a radical trying to do serious harm to the United States by weakening us militarily, economically, and even morally. You can confirm this for yourself just be glancing at today’s headlines.
When the Republicans take back both houses in November, impeachment proceedings need to begin.
Obama is a serious threat to every one of us.
“What gives any president the right to make a unilateral decision of this magnitude?”
I would hazard that it comes from the part of the constitution where it says he is commander in chief of the armed forces.
Underscoring the importance of placing only qualified individuals in this powerful position.....
.....The POTUS is the CIC and must make rational strategic decisions. He is not the head litigator for specific racial groups, environmental activists, specific religions (Islam in this case), or foreign countries.
If the people vote for these qualities and ignore totally the CIC role of the POTUS, we risk a rogue President who can lead us to military stand-down and being open for easy attack. THIS is our situation today. Obama is leading us to an increasingly bare and defenseless position.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.