The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemies

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Regardless of how it is painted, the current President is simply fulfilling the role as the elected leader of the world's NUMBER ONE DEFENDER OF PEACE.

Many Presidents have done this before and many will do this in the future.


Don't think for a moment that his actions are weakening our posture.

As for the perception, name one country that's froggy enough to jump based on the idea that America doesn't have as many weapons as it used to so now is a good time to attack them?

Iran
North Korea
and several "non-states" like Somalia, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, al Queda, etc.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

You can't.

Just did.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

If/When America is attacked again, it will be for ideological reasons-- having nothing to do with thought that maybe America does not have as many nuclear weapons to defend herself now that President Obama is President.

When the United States is attacked again it will be because of those ideological reasons you stated.

If the United States is attacked with a nuke, it will be specifically because the Democrat controlled Congress and President Obama have banned the development of a single specific nuclear weapon - the "bunker buster."

They can git rid of hundreds of those shiny missiles and cruise warheads but we need to have about a half dozen bunker busters on hand. Obama and Pelosi/Reid have refused to even let development proceed on those.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Whatever the "right" can do to paint this guy in a negative light.....

You and Barry seem to have forgotten how close Iran is. And, how they already operate 4 well equipped proxy armies throughout the world including a force in the Brazillian/Uruguay/Paraguay no man's land that was responsible for destroying a Jewish owned building in downtown Buenos Aires a few years back.

Yup. It would be good to let those guys have nukes. Don't need any clean underground bunker busters for that job. Nope.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

The limited use BO is promoting is that we will not retaliate with nukes if someone uses chemical or biological weapons against us. Really misguided policy here. And by the way, JD, I praised the Prez when he gave his speech when accepting his Nobel Peace Prize. So at least for me I am not looking to criticize him for every reason. He has just given me very little to applaud him for.

Often, we agree.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Iran
North Korea
and several "non-states" like Somalia, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, al Queda, etc.

Just did.


When the United States is attacked again it will be because of those ideological reasons you stated.

If the United States is attacked with a nuke, it will be specifically because the Democrat controlled Congress and President Obama have banned the development of a single specific nuclear weapon - the "bunker buster."

They can git rid of hundreds of those shiny missiles and cruise warheads but we need to have about a half dozen bunker busters on hand. Obama and Pelosi/Reid have refused to even let development proceed on those.


You and Barry seem to have forgotten how close Iran is. And, how they already operate 4 well equipped proxy armies throughout the world including a force in the Brazillian/Uruguay/Paraguay no man's land that was responsible for destroying a Jewish owned building in downtown Buenos Aires a few years back.

Yup. It would be good to let those guys have nukes. Don't need any clean underground bunker busters for that job. Nope.

Dude,

YOU KNOW that Iran and North Korea are not going to try to attack the United States!


Your "non-states" comment is more on point.

However, the reason for the attack will not be, "America is too weak to defend herself."

The reasoning will be that "Aemrica is evil and must be destroyed."



NO ONE IS GOING TO ATTACK AMERICA FOR PUBLICLY MAKING A STANCE FOR PEACE IN THE WORLD!



Typical right-wing scare tactics are being employed by Pel....

[franklyn4]

I couldnt say it much better
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...ig-bang-treaty


.

[deacon blues]

What did America get in return for the move? Admiration? Warmed hearts? Thank you cards? Did Medvedev and Putin sudeenly become more trustworthy? Did China suddenly become less threatening? Did our enemies from the Islamic world suddenly have an epiphany that we are good-hearted and deserve their friendship?

No, its the same principle as the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The good guys do all the giving in and the bad guys do little to nothing. In a few years the bad guys are crying that we aren't doing enough to promote world peace and we're expected to "lead" the way. Problem is, no one is following.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Dude,

YOU KNOW that Iran and North Korea are not going to try to attack the United States!

LOL... until they really do attack.

North Korea has attacked American targets repeatedly for over 50 years including firing upon and actually boarding U.S. naval ship, taking and holding the crew members hostage for months on end.

North Korea has also fired missiles directly over the nations of Japan and South Korea as a means of threatening the Japanese and the West and extorting additional aid. By treaty, any attack upon Japan is considered an attack on the United States. There is a similar provision in our treaties with South Korea.

As I pointed out, Iran has several well armed, well trained and well funded proxy armies that have been involved in real terrorist activities including attacks on U.S. embassies and the killing of 281 Marines in 1982. One of those armies, Hezbollah, gave Israel all they could handle recently. Iran has said repeatedly and said again recently, that if their nuke processing plants are attacked by Israel they will retaliate against the United States.

Iran has repeatedly run "swarming" exercises in the Gulf targeting U.S. vessels resulting in the exchange of gun fire.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Your "non-states" comment is more on point.

However, the reason for the attack will not be, "America is too weak to defend herself."

The reasoning will be that "Aemrica is evil and must be destroyed."



NO ONE IS GOING TO ATTACK AMERICA FOR PUBLICLY MAKING A STANCE FOR PEACE IN THE WORLD!



Typical right-wing scare tactics are being employed by Pel....

Prior to 9/11 Osama Bin Laden stated clearly that they did NOT expect any retaliation from the U.S. beyond freezing assets and maybe a few cruise missiles. Al Queda said that they fully expected their attack to be so demoralizing that the U.S. would pretty much fold soon after.

This is evidence of just how "strong" they thought us to be.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by pelathais

LOL... until they really do attack.

North Korea has attacked American targets repeatedly for over 50 years including firing upon and actually boarding U.S. naval ship, taking and holding the crew members hostage for months on end.

North Korea has also fired missiles directly over the nations of Japan and South Korea as a means of threatening the Japanese and the West and extorting additional aid. By treaty, any attack upon Japan is considered an attack on the United States. There is a similar provision in our treaties with South Korea.

As I pointed out, Iran has several well armed, well trained and well funded proxy armies that have been involved in real terrorist activities including attacks on U.S. embassies and the killing of 281 Marines in 1982. One of those armies, Hezbollah, gave Israel all they could handle recently. Iran has said repeatedly and said again recently, that if their nuke processing plants are attacked by Israel they will retaliate against the United States.

Iran has repeatedly run "swarming" exercises in the Gulf targeting U.S. vessels resulting in the exchange of gun fire.



Prior to 9/11 Osama Bin Laden stated clearly that they did NOT expect any retaliation from the U.S. beyond freezing assets and maybe a few cruise missiles. Al Queda said that they fully expected their attack to be so demoralizing that the U.S. would pretty much fold soon after.

This is evidence of just how "strong" they thought us to be.

Pel,

There isn't any nation, any group, or any one person who is intent on doing harm to the U.S. who expects the U.S. to respond with a nuclear weapon, unless they use one on us first.

The deal between President Obama and Mevdev concerns stockpiles of nuclear weapons and the pursuit of security and peace so that the threat of nuclear attack can be lessened, even if it is only a little bit.


Again, most of what was done was symbolic-- the President of this world's strongest defender of peace publicly taking action that encourages peace.


Nothing was said or done to make America appear weak in this.


Seriously, you have swallowed hook, line and sinker a negative spin on a positive action by our President.

[deacon blues]

JD, again I ask, what did we gain from this? Read this and think again about how smart this move was:

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 retaliation. (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 b******s 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.

(The above is an editorial by Charles Krauthammer)

Weighing history and the patterns that enemies have displayed, the outcry against this move is not more "anti-Obama" vitriol, its a grave concern foer what is factual and logical. I would that we would err on the side of strength versus on the side of weakness.

Again, WHAT DO WE GAIN FROM SUCH A POSTURE?

[Jermyn Davidson]

I'd like to ask Mr. Krauthaumer personally does he really believe that Iran or North Korea have plans to use a nuclear weapon to attack America in the first place.


If I searched for it, I could find an editorial that praised the President's actions in this arena.


Strategically loopy?

The policy is obviously crafted to strengthen the international agencies responsible for non-biased inspections of nuclear facilities around the world.

When these agencies are seen as independent of American influence and when these agencies are perceived as strong on their own, then they will be more effective in their purpose.

Furthermore, strong and independent nuclear inspecting agencies stating that a nation is non-compliant makes for easier justification for stiff sanctions, and if necessary, military action in operations that don't rely primarilly on American forces.


What a novel idea-- a world that doesn't depend on America to always take care of the dirty work!

[Jermyn Davidson]

Don't we have the power and capability to completely anhililate a country WITHOUT the use of nuclear weapons-- regardless if we were attacked with a nuke or not?


Of course, I'd rather fight nukes with nukes, but the whole world loses in that scenario!


Anything that America can do to not proliferate nuclear weapons we should do, as long as our actions don't violate our own national security.