Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama offers dire warning of possible nuclear terror attack
thehill.com ^ | April 13, 2010 | Sam Youngman

Posted on 04/13/2010 9:58:41 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY

Groups like al Qaeda are working hard to acquire nuclear weapons, and "if they ever succeed, they would surely use it," President Barack Obama said while speaking to more than 40 world leaders Tuesday.

Obama, addressing the opening plenary session of the nuclear security summit in Washington, asked his foreign counterparts to join together "not simply to talk, but to act."

The president's summit has already yielded early successes for the administration with Monday's announcement that Ukraine will give up its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium and China's promise to work with the U.S. on a sanctions resolution on Iran.

On Tuesday, Obama opened with the focus of the summit, building an international effort to prevent loose nuclear material from ending up in the hands of terrorists.

Obama said that 20 years after the end of the Cold War, the world faces "a cruel irony": that the risk of "a nuclear confrontation between nations has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up."

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

1 posted on 04/13/2010 9:58:41 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Ukraine will give up materials....and guess who picks up the tab for that.....


2 posted on 04/13/2010 10:00:01 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (What)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

President Ronald Reagan, 23 MAR 1983

The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression — to preserve freedom and peace.

Since the dawn of the atomic age, we’ve sought to reduce the risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking genuine arms control. “Deterrence” means simply this: making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States, or our allies, or our vital interest, concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won’t attack. We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression.

This strategy of deterrence has not changed. It still works. But what it takes to maintain deterrence has changed. It took one kind of military force to deter an attack when, we had far more nuclear weapons than any other power; it takes another kind now that the Soviets, for example, have enough accurate and powerful nuclear weapons to destroy virtually all of our missiles on the ground. Now, this is not to say that the Soviet Union is planning to make war on us. Nor do I believe a war is inevitable — quite the contrary. But what must be recognized is that our security is based on being prepared to meet all threats.

There was a time when we depended on coastal forts and artillery batteries, because, with the weaponry of that day, any attack would have had to come by sea. Well, this is a different world, and our defenses must be based on recognition and awareness of the weaponry possessed by other nations in the nuclear age.

We can’t afford to believe that we will never be threatened. There have been two world wars in my lifetime. We didn’t start them and, indeed, did everything we could to avoid being drawn into them. But we were ill-prepared for both. Had we been better prepared, peace might have been preserved.


3 posted on 04/13/2010 10:00:53 AM PDT by BCW (http://babylonscovertwar.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Funny, the Chief Enabler warning of nuclear attacks...


4 posted on 04/13/2010 10:01:17 AM PDT by Common Sense 101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

I would tell him to go after the Islamofacist terrorists then. Quit playing footsy with them. When someone slaps you in your face.............you don’t bow to them.


5 posted on 04/13/2010 10:02:01 AM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Obama would love a nuclear attack on US soil. It would give him a reason to institute martial law.


6 posted on 04/13/2010 10:02:32 AM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Sense 101

He is a traitor and should be tried for treason.


7 posted on 04/13/2010 10:02:33 AM PDT by thethirddegree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Common Sense 101

From “overseas contingency operations”?


8 posted on 04/13/2010 10:03:32 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer
Obama would love a nuclear attack on US soil. It would give him a reason to institute martial law.... Exactly what I was thinking....
9 posted on 04/13/2010 10:04:25 AM PDT by Sleeping Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Obama has just delivered his “encoded message” to Al Qaida. Nice of him to do so from the once Bully Pulpit.


10 posted on 04/13/2010 10:07:14 AM PDT by SparkyBass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Ukraine will give up materials

Call me when Iran & N Korea do. Otherwise, it's meaningless.

11 posted on 04/13/2010 10:07:24 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

Anyone else smell a “Reichstag Fire Event”? Maybe ‘Teabaggers’ setting of a nuke! (sarc)


12 posted on 04/13/2010 10:08:47 AM PDT by Kartographer (".. we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

I’m sure NK and Iran are really scared now.


13 posted on 04/13/2010 10:09:42 AM PDT by Proud_USA_Republican ("The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sleeping Freeper

...and the antichrist will appear as a feigner of peace.....


14 posted on 04/13/2010 10:10:02 AM PDT by NoKoolAidforMe (1-20-09--The Beginning of an Error..............1-20-13--Change we can look forward to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
asked his foreign counterparts to join together "not simply to talk, but to act."

It's really getting hard to keep up with which day we should talk and which day we should act.

15 posted on 04/13/2010 10:10:16 AM PDT by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sleeping Freeper
"Obama would love a nuclear attack on US soil. It would give him a reason to institute martial law.... Exactly what I was thinking.... "

Why would he do that? He would then be playing Mussolini in a physically damaged country. Instead, he simply has to cite the immediate threat of nuclear attack and declare martial law...preferably just before the Fall elections. This may all be a theatrical precursor to interfering with the Fall election.

16 posted on 04/13/2010 10:10:20 AM PDT by LZ_Bayonet ( I AM THE TEA PARTY LEADER !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

“Groups like al Qaeda are working hard to acquire nuclear weapons, and “if they ever succeed, they would surely use it,””

This is reason #1, #2 and #3 why Iran cannot be permitted to deploy nuclear weapons. Their irrational hatred of the West virtually guarantees that one of their weapons will find its way into the hands of al Qaeda. The U.S. should stop being so cowardly and simply announce that unless Iranian nuclear facilities are completely dismantled by Nov. 1, we and the Israelis jointly will see to it that they are dismantled through military force. No ifs, ands or buts. It was GHWB’s unwavering insistence “this will not stand” following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait that led to the highly successful military operation to reverse that appalling breach of international law.


17 posted on 04/13/2010 10:20:08 AM PDT by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
Obama, addressing the opening plenary session of the nuclear security summit in Washington, asked his foreign counterparts to join together "not simply to talk, but to act."

Obama will use this "threat" as a means to take even more liberty away from Americans under the guise of "security." The threat is real -- but this president is turning a blind eye to it. His other eye will turn off portions of the internet, only allow certain voices on TV and cable and anything else his mind can envision.

18 posted on 04/13/2010 10:22:34 AM PDT by mlocher (USA is a sovereign nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCW

How I miss Reagan.


19 posted on 04/13/2010 10:23:25 AM PDT by IYAS9YAS (The townhalls were going great until the oPods showed up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
As the Anti-Reagan (Peace through Strength) dismantles our National Security, his motto becomes “Defeat through appeasement and weakness”. If he is not the Antichrist he is certainly his front-man.
20 posted on 04/13/2010 10:26:37 AM PDT by Apercu ("A man's character is his fate" - Heraclitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson