I think it’s actually a rather sage position. By guaranteeing non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, you are removing the incentive of states who’s primary enemy is the United States from developing them.
That is not only an admirable moral high ground, it is also a very practical in that it will simply reduce the number of would-be proliferators.
Crazies like Iran and North Korea are obvious exceptions, but they aren’t really the states targeted by that decision.
You’re as batshit crazy as he is.
I suspect the ONLY reason Saddam Hussein did not employ gas in Desert Storm is because GHWB was quite vocal about suggesting that we would very likely retaliate with nukes.
Had Malcolm O been president at the time with this policy in place, Hussein would have used gas (and possibly bio) against us, just as he had the Iranians and the Kurds.
“By guaranteeing non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, you are removing the incentive of states who’s primary enemy is the United States from developing them.”
Let’s think about this logically. A country whose primary enemy is the U.S. is expected to place its security on the verbal assurances of an enemy that retains 800 or more nuclear weapons (it remains to be seen how much Obama disarms us in pursuit of a nuclear deal with Russia)?
According to this logic, so long as Iran gives us a verbal reassurance that they won’t use nuclear weapons offensively, everything should be hunky dory: no harm, no foul! Can you imagine Obama delivering a speech in which he announces to Americans that he’s received such assurances from Iran, hence there is no need of sanctions and no need for further concern, since he has their solemn promise in his hip pocket???
The idea that proliferation in today’s volatile world is driven principally by concerns over the U.S. is ludicrous. The U.S. could disappear from the face of the earth and Iran still would want weapons to counter Israel and then Eqypt, Syria and UAE would likely want such weapons to counter Iran etc.