Overall, this seems like a positive step to me. The threat of using nuclear arms against non-nuclear states usually rings a bit hollow anyways. I would like to see more detail on what could be a coercive move to encourage other states to join non-proliferation treaties if they are not already signatories to them (and don't already have nukes).

I don't see much there that is objectionable, and given the current state of affairs with Iran, Syria, (and Lybia), the policy seems like it would serve to benefit the US, even if just at the margins.

Obama limits U.S. use of nuclear arms - washingtonpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...00662.html Wrote:Under the revamped policy, the United States for the first time is forswearing use of atomic weapons against non-nuclear countries, a break with a Bush-era threat of nuclear retaliation in the event of a biological or chemical attack.

But the new strategy comes with a major condition that the countries will be spared a U.S. nuclear response only if they are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That loophole means Iran and North Korea would not be protected.

I dunno. The use of mass quantities of conventional weapons in retaliation to an attack is bound to have its own set of consequences. I'm not sure there's any real improvement here.

(04-06-2010 11:55 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Overall, this seems like a positive step to me. The threat of using nuclear arms against non-nuclear states usually rings a bit hollow anyways. I would like to see more detail on what could be a coercive move to encourage other states to join non-proliferation treaties if they are not already signatories to them (and don't already have nukes).

I don't see much there that is objectionable, and given the current state of affairs with Iran, Syria, (and Lybia), the policy seems like it would serve to benefit the US, even if just at the margins.

Obama limits U.S. use of nuclear arms - washingtonpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...00662.html Wrote:Under the revamped policy, the United States for the first time is forswearing use of atomic weapons against non-nuclear countries, a break with a Bush-era threat of nuclear retaliation in the event of a biological or chemical attack.

But the new strategy comes with a major condition that the countries will be spared a U.S. nuclear response only if they are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That loophole means Iran and North Korea would not be protected.

You don't have a problem with something Obama did? Not surprised by Torchy's comment though.

Perhaps not real, but maybe symbolic. The threat of mass retaliation with conventional weapons or retaliation in kind with the use of chemical weapons seems more of a deterrent to potential adversaries than nuclear did. That's why I see the change as something that does not harm the US position, but potentially benefits coalition building against Iran (not likely to see any change at all there, though). Against nations like Syria that are not likely to be overtly aggressive (at least in the sense that Iraq was), this is more likely to have positive influence than negative.

It may just be a bad idea to give something up without seeing the potential for real benefit (as opposed to PR), but it seems like Obama missed all of the opportunities to do something genuinely harmful here.

(04-06-2010 12:16 PM)RobertN Wrote:  You don't have a problem with something Obama did?

I'm saving my energy for his next colossal ****-up. You know damn well it's just around the corner.

My guess is this is a lot of talk, a bone to the far-left. It's just another chance for this Administration to preen, because the reality is that an serious WMD attack on the USA would be met with an overwhelming nuclear response, even by Obama.

For the past 50 years, the cardinal rule when it comes to American nuclear weapons is to keep them guessing. We want our enemies to believe that we may well be crazy enough to vaporize them, given sufficient provocation.

The problem with this new approach is that since it removes that ambiguity of "How will the USA respond to X?" so that by the time the USA is responding with nuclear weapons, it is too late.

I think a better approach to nuclear policy is to continue to support nuclear non-proliferation and to support the destruction of global nuclear arsenals, the USA included, but to keep our attack response policy as "we reserve the right to respond in any way we see fit. Nuclear weapons included."