[tanknetter]

This is from the article...But one official said: “Obama is now driving this process. He is saying these are the president’s weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role.” They’re the president’s weapons? He really scares me if that’s how he looks at it.

In many respects, this can be seen as an opposite of what Harry Truman tried in the late 1940s with the overemphasis on USAF-delivered nuclear weapons at the expense of other nuclear delivery options and conventional capabilities.

The focus for that fight was the interservice conflict between the Air Force and its B-36 and the Navy with the USS United States (CVB-58). The Navy's new carrier was canceled only days after its keel had been laid, resulting in an event now known as the "Revolt of the Admirals".

I have to wonder whether, should Obama try to do something phenomenally stupid wrt destroying the US's deterrence capabilities, there'd be a modern repeat of that event and senior military commanders would start submitting their papers.

I actually think there's a good chance that would happen. Nuclear deterrence has been a keystone of US military doctrine for GENERATIONS. And I'd also think that it would be something 1.) the MSM couldn't ignore and 2.) the majority of the American public would react to in a negative (for Obama and the Dems), way.

[rangerwife]

I understood that from the article that there is going to be a look at use of them as far as doctrine, etc. Ok, whatever, but the fact that he said they’re the president’s weapons just bugged me.