Posted on 07/11/2016 1:41:36 PM PDT by plain talk
.... Several U.S. officials briefed on the options told me they include declaring a “no first use” policy for the United States’ nuclear arsenal, which would be a landmark change in the country’s nuclear posture.
Another option under consideration is seeking a U.N. Security Council resolution affirming a ban on the testing of nuclear weapons. This would be a way to enshrine the United States’ pledge not to test without having to seek unlikely Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
The administration is also considering offering Russia a five-year extension of the New START treaty’s limits on deployed nuclear weapons, even though those limits don’t expire until 2021. This way, Obama could ensure that the next administration doesn’t let the treaty lapse.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Since when have we ever had a policy that allows us to launch or “shoot first”? All I’ve ever heard about is M.A.D. If they fire, we fire. And “they” knew we would shoot back. Now they know there’s a good possibility we’ll never shoot back.
You are so correct!
Our policy has forever and always been one of retaliation!
The US has never had a first strike policy with strategic assets.
The angle here must be to somehow rewrite history to further demagogue previous presidents and US History, and elevate Obama’s and progressive/socialist stature for the politically correct history books and academics in the future, PERIOD!
0bama gave NATO our missile shield last week. Just handed it over.
IF we actually have destroyed the bulk of our nuclear arsenal, in accordance with keeping our side of these previous treaties and agreements, optimistically it is going to take us at least a few years to reestablish the deterrent.
We all would wish otherwise, but this is not so simple a reversal.
This period would truly be the most potentially dangerous time in American history! And this deadly danger will have been created by Obama to lay at the feet of successive presidents and Americans.
In the very least, this would have the outcome of reducing us from the worlds most powerful military to the worlds 11-12th most capable military, based on the fact there are already at least 10 or 11 nations with nuclear weapons. It will also open us up to accepting the will of the often totalitarian nations which have retained and are building their nuclear arsenals.
Not entirely unlike how Obama actually is responsible for the sub-prime housing market crash and “deep recession/depression”, when he, as the lead lawyer, successfully forced our nations banks to comply with Clintons executive expansion of the CRA, to produce a high volume of sub-prime mortgages. It brought our economy to its knees, but on a successive presidents clock.
I realize we are limited in how much can actually be stated here, but unlike the US, the Russians have simply not held to any previous agreement, retaining a higher volume of warheads, and the Chinese also will soon surpass what we currently have. Thus us happening even without any further reductions or total elimination from the US.
Our long standing retaliatory policy of MAD is already gone or impossible, unless we have done what the Russians have done, and withheld a portion of our arsenal from the negotiation table.
These are some crazy stupid immoral times -
If Obama’s goal and purpose was to take America down, he is just about there!
It being off the table encourages all manner of bad behavior and line-skipping. It’s always a bad idea to tie our hands.
I don’t buy it. Obama just wants more plausible deniability,
and ~100% of voters would rally around the CIC (and Hillary) in October after the nuclear incident occurs.
HE will broadcast world-wide that the OTHER SIDE STARTED IT. And how would anyone in this country know otherwise?
Nuclear is probably the only type of emergency that might keep him in office past January 20th, but even if THAT option doesn’t work,
people would accept whomever he (oops, I mean Valerie Jarrett) picks to replace him.
Probably General Wesley Clark, who used tank-flamethrowers to burn down Waco along with the women and children inside.
really, can’t we just put this POS on the golf course for the rest of his term???
I think past administrations have been careful not to tie our hands for potential crises, especially unforeseen types of problems. “First use” does not only apply to some massive strike option, the question is whether we should rule out forever even one or a small number of, e.g., tactical nukes in some terrible situation. I doubt too many US leaders would give much serious consideration to first use but that does not mean we should constrain ourselves by a “policy” of no first use.
That’s what several of us are worried about.....
Yeah, good observation. That’s enough for some folks. Or so they think. I’m taking it you meant with a bit of irony.
Revelation 3:17-18 King James Version (KJV)
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
I tell ya, 20 years ago, some were predicting the Antichrist would do just that. In fact, it’s even in the first “Left Behind” movie, IIRC.
Shades of Belshazzar of Babylon,
Pray that God pulls back the veil and lets the people see with their own eyes what this thing is occupying the White House,
” Several U.S. officials briefed on the options told me they include declaring a “no first use” policy for the United States’ nuclear arsenal, which would be a landmark change in the country’s nuclear posture.”
Um, when Bro-bama first took office it came out that he’d even taken a “nuclear response” (to a nuclear attack) off the table. His goal is zero nuclear arsenal for the USA.
The Bible foretells of Nuclear Warfare especially with the Magog Invasion the Burden of Damascus the battle of Armageddon plus in the book of Zechariah it speaks of neutron Bomb.
I really wouldn’t put my trust in the left behind series Tim Lehay got so much stuff wrong other than rapture
I never made it past the 3rd book. But in the movie, the AC does away with nuclear weapons for “peace”. That was pretty much all I was referring to there. Actually, I think the Gog-Magog of Ezek 38 fits somewhat like that, too. Perhaps a bit earlier.
He just pardoned the convected General, Cartwright, who perjured himself about leaking to 2 reporters about the US and Israel’s Stuxnet op against Iran.... probably because Cartwright is one of the figureheads of the Global Zero nuclear disarmament group.
There is a vast difference between being capable of a first strike but having only a retaliatory policy... and not having the capability of a first strike and having only a retaliatory policy.
The capability of launching a successful first strike is the true deterrent to a war, nuclear or not.
Retaliatory threats are only a deterrent to the other guy using a certain class of weapons in his war on us.
It’s the first strike capability, which Cheney warned Saddam we were willing to use should Saddam use certain nonnuclear weapons, which stayed Saddam from ordering the use of chemical weapons against the US in the 1st Gulf War.
You are so correct -
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.