Un-F***ing-believable – Obama Publicly Rules Out Use of Nukes in Response To Chemical, Biological or Crippling Cyber Attack
Are you kidding me?
For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.
Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and newly designed conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.
White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.
Obviously not because you ruled out the use of nukes you flaming fucking idiot. Another thing, just how are we supposed to know when countries are developing biological weapons at a level that would leave the US vulnerable to a devastating attack? Biological weapons are illegal under the 1972 Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention, so are we just counting on countries telling us that they are violating the treaty and producing enough toxins to wipe out the human race or will it be another situation like this –
After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Iraq admitted to the United Nations inspection team to having produced 19,000 L of concentrated botulinum toxin, of which approximately 10,000 L were loaded into military weapons; the 19,000 L have never been fully accounted for. This is approximately 3 times the amount needed to kill the entire current human population by inhalation, although in practice it would be impossible to distribute it so efficiently, and, unless it is protected from oxygen, it deteriorates in storage.
Maybe next time we won’t stumble across the stuff until after it’s been released in NYC or LA. And why just biological weapons? Why not chemical weapons to?
Beyond all that assuming it’s not terminally naive to adopt such a position (which it is) why in God’s name would you announce it. Do you want people to attack us? This is so childish and utopian in it’s thinking it is actually making my head hurt.
In my opinion if there was ever a policy decision that called for impeachment this is it. Unfortunately I think this is squarely within the President’s powers both to set foreign policy and as Commander-in-Chief.
Exit question one: In limiting the nuclear deterrent to nuclear weapons (and, in certain cases, biological attacks) instead of WMD generally, doesn’t this create an incentive to focus on developing bio and chemical weapons? In most cases those are less dangerous than nukes, but nukes are also harder to develop and more easy to monitor. Do we really want tomorrow’s A.Q. Khans focusing on smallpox instead? Exit question two: If the point here is to raise the taboo on using nuclear weapons, doesn’t that actually make them more enticing for jihadi fanatics?
Legal Insurrection echoes –
Sheer lunacy. What doesn’t Obama understand about “deterrence.” That means that nations which possess chemical and biological weapons will not even think about using them against us because the consequences would be so devastating for them.
Now, a little chem weapons here, a little bio weapons there, and all is good.
The world now is a more dangerous place.