• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama's Nuclear Posturing, Part Deux

Sandokan

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
466
Location
Los Angels, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Obama's Nuclear Posturing, Part Deux
Charles Krauthammer : Obama's Nuclear Posturing, Part Deux - Townhall.com

by Charles Krauthammer
April 16, 2010

WASHINGTON -- There was something oddly disproportionate about the just-concluded nuclear summit to which President Obama summoned 46 world leaders, the largest such gathering on American soil since 1945. That meeting was about the founding of the United Nations, which 65 years ago seemed an event of world-historical importance.

But this one? What was this great convocation about? To prevent the spread of nuclear material into the hands of terrorists. A worthy goal, no doubt. Unfortunately, the two greatest such threats were not even on the agenda.

The first is Iran, which is frantically enriching uranium to make a bomb, and which our own State Department identifies as the greatest exporter of terrorism in the world.

Nor on the agenda was Pakistan's plutonium production, which is adding to the world's stockpile of fissile material every day.
Charles has the guts to put the facts on the table. This summit was just another attempt by President Obama to placate. He has simply presented the "reality" of the substance of Barack Obama's summit on controlling nuclear fissile material. Specifically, it was devoid of substance.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,231
Reaction score
32,995
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Charles has the guts to put the facts on the table. This summit was just another attempt by President Obama to placate. He has simply presented the "reality" of the substance of Barack Obama's summit on controlling nuclear fissile material. Specifically, it was devoid of substance.
You seem to be under the impression that President Obama personally sets the agenda for these summits.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Uh, the point of the meeting was to prevent NSA from getting weapons. Iran has not shown it will give terrorists anything advanced much less a nuke. Furthermore, Pakistan from what I read, actually has decent security not to mention breaks its weapons apart and stores them in pieces.

How Obama doesn't deserve praise for getting stockpiles like the one in Chile to safer locations is beyond me.
 

Sandokan

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
466
Location
Los Angels, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Uh, the point of the meeting was to prevent NSA from getting weapons. Iran has not shown it will give terrorists anything advanced much less a nuke. Furthermore, Pakistan from what I read, actually has decent security not to mention breaks its weapons apart and stores them in pieces.

How Obama doesn't deserve praise for getting stockpiles like the one in Chile to safer locations is beyond me.
The irony is that Iran and the radical mullahs were the tipping point that brought Carter done and Iran and the radical mullahs will be the tipping point that brings Obama done. Everything Obama needs to be successful is staring him right in the face.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,231
Reaction score
32,995
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The irony is that Iran and the radical mullahs were the tipping point that brought Carter done and Iran and the radical mullahs will be the tipping point that brings Obama done. Everything Obama needs to be successful is staring him right in the face.
Perhaps you could expand on that because I'm not following your internal monologue.
 

Sandokan

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
466
Location
Los Angels, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Perhaps you could expand on that because I'm not following your internal monologue.
What is the chance that enriched uranium from Canada, Ukraine, Mexico, or Chile ever will land in the hands of terrorists? Close to zero.
The immediate threat of the nuclear kind is Iran. What did this summit actually produce in real terms to deter or lessen its threat? What has this President done otherwise to deter or lessen this threat? He spent a year kissing up to the man who stole the Iranian presidency. The answer will be zero, zip.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What is the chance that enriched uranium from Canada, Ukraine, Mexico, or Chile ever will land in the hands of terrorists? Close to zero.
The immediate threat of the nuclear kind is Iran. What did this summit actually produce in real terms to deter or lessen its threat? What has this President done otherwise to deter or lessen this threat? He spent a year kissing up to the man who stole the Iranian presidency. The answer will be zero, zip.
Let's be real...the only thing really ever to come out of summits like this, regardless of who is President, is a non-binding communique that does little to change any policy issues.

It was not really a failure, because in reality, success is simply keeping the conversation going, and keeping it on the minds of other nations.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Charles has the guts to put the facts on the table. This summit was just another attempt by President Obama to placate. He has simply presented the "reality" of the substance of Barack Obama's summit on controlling nuclear fissile material. Specifically, it was devoid of substance.
You should really focus on the posturing of the Democratic party since they're collectively calling the shots. They try to stick to their party platform and have done a decent job of it, already.

The Democratic Party

right click on the document screen and select search - type in nuclear - and key "enter" to scroll through each mention of the term.

It's easier to traverse the document if you download it - to do so you'll have to sign up to scribd but it's free to download and is worth the read.
 

Sandokan

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
466
Location
Los Angels, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Let's be real...the only thing really ever to come out of summits like this, regardless of who is President, is a non-binding communique that does little to change any policy issues.

It was not really a failure, because in reality, success is simply keeping the conversation going, and keeping it on the minds of other nations.
It has been the unstated policy of every president since Truman to leave open the threat of massive nuclear retaliation for serious attacks against the United States and our allies of a non-nuclear type. That has served us quite well for three generations. It kept the Russians out of Western Europe. It stopped Saddam Hussein from using chemical or biological weapons against our soldiers in the Gulf War. What is the case for changing it now?
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It has been the unstated policy of every president since Truman to leave open the threat of massive nuclear retaliation for serious attacks against the United States and our allies of a non-nuclear type. That has served us quite well for three generations. It kept the Russians out of Western Europe. It stopped Saddam Hussein from using chemical or biological weapons against our soldiers in the Gulf War. What is the case for changing it now?
President Obama has not really changed it. In his Nuclear Posture Review he stated:

"The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations."

(Key being "in compliance")

It also goes on to state, "Given the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid pace of bio-technology development, the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapons threat and US capacities to counter that threat."

What this means is basically that the language will shift towards lessening the nuclear role, however it leaves the door wide open for their use should the need actually arise.
 

Sandokan

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
466
Location
Los Angels, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
President Obama has not really changed it. In his Nuclear Posture Review he stated:

"The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations."

(Key being "in compliance")

It also goes on to state, "Given the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid pace of bio-technology development, the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapons threat and US capacities to counter that threat."

What this means is basically that the language will shift towards lessening the nuclear role, however it leaves the door wide open for their use should the need actually arise.
Most presidents seldom push the envelope, but Obama does it on virtually everything he does. He is a leftist who is endangering our prosperity and security in his mindless quest for "fairness".

How secure are we supposed to feel when, in the case of biological or chemical attack, the USA cannot retaliate until a team of lawyers determine the nuclear compliance of our attacker? This is pure insanity.

Whether Obama is without skills, or purposely acting against America's best interests, he is a danger to our well being. Americans must vote out his accomplices in November in order to contain him until 2012 and defeat him in his attempt for a second term.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Most presidents seldom push the envelope, but Obama does it on virtually everything he does. He is a leftist who is endangering our prosperity and security in his mindless quest for "fairness".

How secure are we supposed to feel when, in the case of biological or chemical attack, the USA cannot retaliate until a team of lawyers determine the nuclear compliance of our attacker? This is pure insanity.
Well, if you read the second quote that I posted from the nuclear posture review.. the scenario you describe would not actually ever occur.

Whether Obama is without skills, or purposely acting against America's best interests, he is a danger to our well being. Americans must vote out his accomplices in November in order to contain him until 2012 and defeat him in his attempt for a second term.
I mean, this has nothing to do with his nuclear posture doctrine, so I am not sure what this has to do with the discussion.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,231
Reaction score
32,995
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Most presidents seldom push the envelope, but Obama does it on virtually everything he does. He is a leftist who is endangering our prosperity and security in his mindless quest for "fairness".

How secure are we supposed to feel when, in the case of biological or chemical attack, the USA cannot retaliate until a team of lawyers determine the nuclear compliance of our attacker? This is pure insanity.

Whether Obama is without skills, or purposely acting against America's best interests, he is a danger to our well being. Americans must vote out his accomplices in November in order to contain him until 2012 and defeat him in his attempt for a second term.
He's "pushing the envelope" by making no substantial changes to our national defense or nuclear weapons policy?
 

Sandokan

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
466
Location
Los Angels, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
We had nukes for about 5 years when no other country in the world possessed them. Can you imagine what would happen if China, Russia, North Korea or Iran had nukes and we didn't?

Obama is trying to find out. We have actually destroyed a missile with lasers. Obama's proposes defense budget drops funding for it. He also dropped funding for the F-22 at a time when Russia boasts that they will soon have its equivalent. Construction of new stealthy Zumwalt class destroyers is being cut. The next super weapon, which supposedly can make nuclear weapons obsolete, will come from nanotechnology. We lag behind China in this field. For some strange reason our President wants to find out what will happen when an enemy gets military superiority over us.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We had nukes for about 5 years when no other country in the world possessed them. Can you imagine what would happen if China, Russia, North Korea or Iran had nukes and we didn't?
We would probably develop them... but since we still have a large amout of warheads (even with the recent cuts), I don't really see your point.

Obama is trying to find out. We have actually destroyed a missile with lasers. Obama's proposes defense budget drops funding for it. He also dropped funding for the F-22 at a time when Russia boasts that they will soon have its equivalent. Construction of new stealthy Zumwalt class destroyers is being cut. The next super weapon, which supposedly can make nuclear weapons obsolete, will come from nanotechnology. We lag behind China in this field. For some strange reason our President wants to find out what will happen when an enemy gets military superiority over us.
I mean, I am right there with you on the fact that we should not have cut the ABL or the F-22, but in reality, other ABM systems more than make up for the absence of the ABL system. Now people will argue that the vast numbers of F-35's that we are planning will be enough to overwhelm any potential opponent, and they may be right, but in a recent war game, the F-35 fared pretty poorly against the Russian SU-35 by being denied access to refueling tankers. That is something we ought to consider.

Putting all of that aside however, the ABL and the F-22 cuts do not effect the capability of the American nuclear arsenal, which was seemingly your main point at the beginning of the discussion.
 

Sandokan

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
466
Location
Los Angels, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Words don't mean a thing. They're "cheap" as the saying goes, and Obama is very good with words. He speaks with such sincerity and convection, and is therefore easy to believe. Behavior does speak the truth. When you watch the behavior of President Obama and the Democrats in Congress, it behavior tells us that collectively they don't care about America. I believe they know precisely what they're doing, and it isn’t for the good of our nation.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Words don't mean a thing. They're "cheap" as the saying goes, and Obama is very good with words. He speaks with such sincerity and convection, and is therefore easy to believe. Behavior does speak the truth. When you watch the behavior of President Obama and the Democrats in Congress, it behavior tells us that collectively they don't care about America. I believe they know precisely what they're doing, and it isn’t for the good of our nation.
......ok, but not exactly relevant to the issue we were discussing...what "talk" is it you are refferring to? What "actions" are you pointing to? The above statement really does not continue the discussion at all.
 

Al Battani

New member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
20
Reaction score
12
Location
Sydney, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
How secure are we supposed to feel when, in the case of biological or chemical attack, the USA cannot retaliate until a team of lawyers determine the nuclear compliance of our attacker? This is pure insanity.
It's a minor point in the grand scheme of things but why do you think that the White House would wait until after a nuclear attack to determine a nation's compliance status? I think it's fairly safe to assume that they have knowledge of such things at present and would keep that information updated regularly...

On to the larger issue, why do people expect miraculous results from Obama? What was supposed to result from the summit, a grand treaty were every nuclear weapon-possessing nation agreed to dismantle their entire arsenal over the next five or ten years? It was one summit in what will surely be a series over Obama's term, let's be realistic about what we expect as a result, especially considering there were 46 different voices at the summit. The fact that Obama announced the exact size of America's nuclear arsenal (something no President has done until now), agreed to a framework for a reduction in nuclear warheads as well as a slight modification of the Nuclear Posture should be considered in the context of domestic attitudes and the nature of international diplomacy. Obama can't simply wave his magical Presidential Wand and eliminate Iran and North Korea's nuclear arsenal, diffuse the tensions between India and Pakistan and allay the concerns of the security community in the US....
 

Sandokan

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
466
Location
Los Angels, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The fact that Obama announced the exact size of America's nuclear arsenal (something no President has done until now), agreed to a framework for a reduction in nuclear warheads as well as a slight modification of the Nuclear Posture should be considered in the context of domestic attitudes and the nature of international diplomacy. Obama can't simply wave his magical Presidential Wand and eliminate Iran and North Korea's nuclear arsenal, diffuse the tensions between India and Pakistan and allay the concerns of the security community in the US....
Obama has gotten nothing in the form of sanctions. Obama agree to the withdrawal of missile defense from Poland and Czechoslovakia in return for nothing from Russia, except the promise of goodwill in the future.

Reagan got real reductions, not just limitations but real reductions, in nuclear armaments with the Soviet Union, when it meant something. Obama got promised reductions from Russia when they mean little or nothing. It can cause us trouble diplomatically.

What has Obama gotten from Iran? That's what matters today. And the answer is nothing, for a year of real sucking up.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,231
Reaction score
32,995
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We had nukes for about 5 years when no other country in the world possessed them. Can you imagine what would happen if China, Russia, North Korea or Iran had nukes and we didn't?

Obama is trying to find out. We have actually destroyed a missile with lasers. Obama's proposes defense budget drops funding for it. He also dropped funding for the F-22 at a time when Russia boasts that they will soon have its equivalent. Construction of new stealthy Zumwalt class destroyers is being cut. The next super weapon, which supposedly can make nuclear weapons obsolete, will come from nanotechnology. We lag behind China in this field. For some strange reason our President wants to find out what will happen when an enemy gets military superiority over us.
The ABL program does not need further research at this time. The purpose of the program was to determine whether hitting a ballistic missile with a laser was feasible. The ABL used a chemical laser with a long recharge time and had range less than half of what could be considered feasible for actual operations. The program worked - they figured out the targeting system and the fact that yes, you can blow up a missile with a laser. Further development of the program requires significant improvement in the laser itself. That research continues. (current efforts focus on improving solid-state lasers that don't require chemical "ammo," as well as trying to figure out how to deliver the needed power at several times the current range)

That missile defense shield that got canceled wasn't a laser program, it was a counter-missile system that has a pretty crappy track record. It's being replaced with a better system, not canceled. The current plan, IIRC, is to use a sea-based missile fired by Aegis-equipped cruisers. (assuming you're talking about the same program I am)

Stealthy destroyers and nanotechnology aren't even worth talking about. Our navy grossly outclasses everyone on the planet and a nanotechnology "superweapon" is science fiction. Besides, nanobots of doom still aren't going to protect you from ICBMs.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Obama has gotten nothing in the form of sanctions. Obama agree to the withdrawal of missile defense from Poland and Czechoslovakia in return for nothing from Russia, except the promise of goodwill in the future.
I agree, we could have gotten more for not deploying GMD in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic, however the decision not to deploy that system in that location does not effect the coverage of the United States. In fact, (assuming he follows through with it) what Obama proposed in terms of missile defense actually offers better coverage of both the US and Europe against a wider range of threats.

Reagan got real reductions, not just limitations but real reductions, in nuclear armaments with the Soviet Union, when it meant something. Obama got promised reductions from Russia when they mean little or nothing. It can cause us trouble diplomatically.

What has Obama gotten from Iran? That's what matters today. And the answer is nothing, for a year of real sucking up.
Obama got reductions that Russia will have to do regardless. I don't see it really causing trouble "diplomatically", but we shall see. In terms of "getting" something from Iran, you are correct, we have gotten nothing at this point.
 

Al Battani

New member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
20
Reaction score
12
Location
Sydney, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Obama has gotten nothing in the form of sanctions. Obama agree to the withdrawal of missile defense from Poland and Czechoslovakia in return for nothing from Russia, except the promise of goodwill in the future.

Reagan got real reductions, not just limitations but real reductions, in nuclear armaments with the Soviet Union, when it meant something. Obama got promised reductions from Russia when they mean little or nothing. It can cause us trouble diplomatically.

What has Obama gotten from Iran? That's what matters today. And the answer is nothing, for a year of real sucking up.
You posted this before they were announced so it's not fair to say this as a criticism of your argument but the UNSC announced an increase in sanctions on Iran and several countries such as my own have announced additional sanctions on top of that.

Care to elaborate on the diplomatic trouble that results from these 'promised reductions that mean little or nothing'?

I also fail to see how the US has 'sucked up to Iran'. You also seem to think that Obama can just unilaterally solve the problem overnight...
 
Top Bottom