Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums?
• Intelligent and friendly discussions.
• It's free and it's quick. Always.
• Enter events in the forums calendar.
• Very user friendly software.
• Exclusive contests and giveaways.
Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here
Our 2013 Goal: $400.00 - To Date: $00.00 (00.00%)
|Home | Forums | Editorials | Shop | Tickets | Downloads | Contact||Not Just Fans. Hardcore Fans.|
|04-11-2010, 10:04 AM||#1|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Akron, Ohio Home of LeBron James
Member Number: 5353
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Obama's Nuke Agreement....
Did not know some of this stuff. interesting...
A nuclear turn both 'morally bizarre' and 'strategically loopy' Published on Sunday, Apr 11, 2010
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON: Nuclear doctrine consists of thinking the unthinkable. It involves making threats and promising retaliation that is cruel and destructive beyond imagining. But it has its purpose: to prevent war in the first place.
During the Cold War, we let the Russians know that if they dared use their huge conventional military advantage and invaded Western Europe, they risked massive U.S. nuclear retaliation. Goodbye Moscow.
Was this credible? Would we have done it? Who knows? No one's ever been there. A nuclear posture is just that — a declaratory policy designed to make the other guy think twice.
Our policies did. The result was called deterrence. For half a century, it held. The Soviets never invaded. We never used nukes. That's why nuclear doctrine is important.
The Obama administration has just issued a new one that ''includes significant changes to the U.S. nuclear posture,'' said Defense Secretary Bob Gates. First among these involves the U.S. response to being attacked with biological or chemical weapons.
Under the old doctrine, supported by every president of both parties for decades, any aggressor ran the risk of a cataclysmic U.S. nuclear response that would leave the attacking nation a cinder and a memory.
Again: Credible? Doable? No one knows. But the threat was very effective.
Under President Obama's new policy, however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is ''in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),'' explained Gates, then ''the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it.''
Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT.
If it turns out that the attacker is up-to-date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retribution. (Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs and other conventional munitions.)
However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT noncompliant, we are free to blow the bastards to nuclear kingdom come.
This is quite insane. It's like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections.
Apart from being morally bizarre, the Obama policy is strategically loopy. Does anyone believe that North Korea or Iran will be more persuaded to abjure nuclear weapons because they could then carry out a biological or chemical attack on the U.S. without fear of nuclear retaliation?
The naivete is stunning. Similarly the Obama pledge to forswear development of any new nuclear warheads, indeed, to permit no replacement of aging nuclear components without the authorization of the president himself. This under the theory that our moral example will move other countries to eschew nukes.
On the contrary. The last quarter-century — the time of greatest superpower nuclear arms reduction — is precisely when Iran and North Korea went hellbent into the development of nuclear weapons.
It gets worse. The administration's Nuclear Posture Review declares U.S. determination to ''continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks.'' The ultimate aim is to get to a blanket doctrine of no first use.
This is deeply worrying to many small nations who for half a century relied on the extended U.S. nuclear umbrella to keep them from being attacked or overrun by far more powerful neighbors. When smaller allies see the United States determined to move inexorably away from that posture — and for them it's not posture, but existential protection — what are they to think?
Fend for yourself. Get yourself your own WMDs. Go nuclear if you have to. Do you imagine they are not thinking that in the Persian Gulf?
This administration seems to believe that by restricting retaliatory threats and by downplaying our reliance on nuclear weapons, it is discouraging proliferation.
But the opposite is true. Since World War II, smaller countries have agreed to forgo the acquisition of deterrent forces — nuclear, biological and chemical — precisely because they placed their trust in the firmness, power and reliability of the American deterrent.
Seeing America retreat, they will rethink. And some will arm. There is no greater spur to hyper-proliferation than the furling of the American nuclear umbrella.
Krauthammer is a Washington Post columnist. He can be e-mailed at email@example.com
Official Steelersfever Arians Nuthugger
|04-11-2010, 12:34 PM||#2|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: People's Republic of North Carolina
Member Number: 10927
Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
Re: Obama's Nuke Agreement....
As you ponder “end time scenarios”, the existence of Israel as a state signals to many that we might just live in “those times”. With that as the backdrop, consider the prominence of the United States on the world stage today, and our absence from any biblical “end time scenario”. Raises some interesting questions, none of which lead to a “happy” outcome for the good ol’ US of A.
We Americans tend to look down our noses at the ROW as morally inferior. That hasn’t always been the case. Rather, as our station in the world and relative prosperity have emerged, so has our sense of national self importance and superiority grown. “Certainly we are morally superior to the Russians.” In as much as we are the world’s foremost entertainment “destination”, and the leader in entertainment export, we are also the world’s foremost moral polluter through the export of our sleazy TV, filthy mov¬ies, satanic music, and pornog¬raphy. We are so “modern” as a nation that we will literally tolerate anything but those that won’t. The religion on which this country was founded has been criminalized and all manner of perversion have been given “protected species status”.
It has been said that the Clinton “presidency” said a great deal more about us than it said about Bill Clinton. The one we have today is so bad, so egregious, so beyond the pale, that by contrast, even the most rock ribbed conservative might long for those days of mere stains on an intern’s dress. Certainly the “presidency” of one baraka hussein obama says it all about us, and very little about the Kenyan interloper. We are at “that stage” in our history.
We are at the point that we can’t bear to state that we have an “enemy” that has declared holy war on us. We can’t call that enemy by it’s name, whether it be stating that we are in a global struggle with that enemy for our existence, or that that enemy in the form of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan (HELLO??!!!) had just killed and maimed our soldiers at Ft Hood. Contrast where we are with a mere 15 months ago when we were in a global struggle with islam for our existence, and it was the War on Terror. And we entirely lack the will to do anything about it.
The last 15 months have taken us from being the undisputed single “super power” to an “also ran” that entirely lacks the leadership and resolve to call an enemy an “enemy” and address it accordingly. We are on the brink of financial ruin and accelerating in that direction daily. We have a gubmint that has stated and demonstrated its contempt for the Constitution and its citizens. Those that dare to point this out are marginalized an extremists, or even terrorists.
Why would it surprise anybody that the Kenyan interloper would take the nuclear option off the table. If his “presidency” has earned an “A” for anything, it is consistency. Everything that has been said and done has been in keeping with the agenda of the destruction of this country.
Back to that “end time scenario”. Our name isn’t mentioned. We’re not a factor. We’re not even involved. Try to imagine Armageddon playing out with the United States existing in any form. The United States has to be reduced to a stain on the history of mankind for the nations of the Earth to surround Israel and attack her. Even with the Kenyan interloper at the helm, we wouldn’t stand for it.
For as far as we have fallen in a mere 15 months, imagine where we’ll be in 2012.
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution,
but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)|