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 ...
The six months may be perilous, especially when America's collective eye will be on the election.
“Why?? why do this???”
Because he’s given his Iranian friends nukes, but now he wants to make sure they can successfully use them against Israel before we can retaliate.
A. Scenario 1. I am a bad guy building nuclear weapons in a hardened site 2000 feet below the Elbrus Mountains North of Tehran. As soon as I have weapon I will use it on Israel, NATO, or the United States. My hardened site can not be taken out with conventional weapons. I will use my nukes when they are a deliverable weapon.
B. Scenario 2. Obama does nothing and we are nuked.
C. Scenario 3. Our president is a patriot and tells the bad guys to give them up or we will turn that mountain into a molten radioactive hell and unfortunately most of Tehran at the same time.
Giving up any option relative to first use of nuclear weapons is insane and one must observe the Mullahs are insane. They will use them.
Question: Option B or option C? I prefer C.
We could have taken Japan with conventional forces. We would have had close to a million casualties and 1 to 2 hundred thousand deaths. Japan would have had death and casualties many times in excess of what happened from atomic weapons. They would have lost million mostly to disease and starvation. We had total supremacy of the air and would have continued to fire bomb their cities and any and all infrastructure that supported their war machine and this includes the means of food production, power, and any industry. We dropped the bomb and THEY SURRENDERED and surrendered unconditionally.
Really! When Obummer is on vacay or the golf course he does much less damage to the nation.
Due to all of the scenarios you have outlined, very serious career military people have to be giving some serious thought right now to the Wolf’s Lair Option.
Which is no doubt precisely why Obama has ginned up all of this racial unrest. It’s a layer of self protection. Anyone considering the option would have to factor the chaos and civil unrest into their calculations.
There’s not a piece of coal large enough to add it to Mt. Rushmore.
Destroy every nuclear device we have?
Japan in WWII ;ok
But how large an army does China field?
Nukes would be our chance of winning an allout war.
Wasn’t this Gen. MacArthur’s position?
Disarm the U.S. and fully arm Iran. The Rosenbergs deserve an apology.
After all hellery and obama did make sure this country never can have uranium anymore. She can sell them to the highest bidder. Makes sense.
Rid the world of them. Isn't that sweet.
After years of study, here is my politically incorrect version of what I believe actually took place with the START treaties and subsequent Obama agreements, and why they are so dangerous to our future existence.
To repeat, this is not the official version of what we “know.”
While there has been a significant reduction of Russian warheads from their peak of nearly 55,000 at the “height” of the “Cold War”, Moscow had already reduced or streamlined this number by roughly a third before START I.
However, this “streamlining” is related to the creation of much more powerful warheads.
Both the START I and START II agreements were very much “for public consumption” treaties.
START I and START II represented successful diversions or “fake outs” of the vast majority of people in the US and NATO sphere. At the end of the day, 99% + of society has been duped by both Russian and American propaganda machines.
Well in advance of START I and after START II was signed, the Russian Strategic Rocket Force, moved several thousand warheads out from RVSN RF (also referred to as the Strategic Nuclear Forces or SNF) over to their Russian Ministry of Energy. By doing so, these warheads were simply not eliminated, while creating the appearance of compliance. The warheads which were moved laterally to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Energy were simply not included in negotiation. In addition, it is believed by some that a number of warheads which were to be eliminated by treaty were also moved over to the Russian Ministry of Energy.
While this is not the full story, the timing of this lateral transfer of nuclear warheads coincided with Russia’s temporary 14 June 2002, withdrawal from the START II Treaty. Russian Parliament (which consisted of many former Politburo members) would not comply until they knew they had safely retained the majority of their stockpile.
” ...ratified by the U.S. Senate on 26 January 1996 with a vote of 87-4. Russia ratified START II on 14 April 2000, but on 14 June 2002, withdrew from the treaty...” https://www.nti.org
Soon after, there was a subsequent organizational realignment of the Russian Ministry of Energy with their SNF.
The Clinton administration simply looked the other way, and every subsequent fictional agreement involving Obama is a complete joke on us, foisted on America by compliant and willful left-wing media.
Even worse, our foreign policy has now largely resulted in a real nuclear arms race across much Asia.
Additionally, unless we very quietly retained a much larger stockpile as the Russians have, the Chinese arsenal will equal or surpass our arsenal in the near future.
If I am right, the old policy or deterrence “strategy” of Mutual Assured Destruction, may truly not exist in the very near future.
Again, in a nutshell, this is a summary of my entirely politically incorrect narrative.
He plans to dismantle all our nukes, then paint a big sign somewhere that says, “Bomb us.”
When nukes are outlawed only outlaws will have nukes.
He’s going to do as much damage as he can to the country he hates in his final six months - it won’t be pretty....
It could be, only we are outlawing nukes...
Trump will roll that one back during the first week.
Breaking the War Mentality (Obama's 1983 College Magazine Article )
On the other hand, I'm not sure Obama has control of the football now anyway--he might think he does. . .
Wont be policy very long.
How stupid is that? If all ccw folks had a no first use, meaning you had to be shot at and possibly hit,first.
Jeeez, what a moron.
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.