The most dangerous part of this paragraph from the New York Times: "It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the Cold War. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear 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." It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the Cold War. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear 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. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html
So, if a country decides to launch a chemical or biological attack against the U.S., they don't have to fear about being blown up within a short period of time.
But the most idiotic part of this is that he actually made this public. It's one thing keep your enemy guessing but it's another to give them your game plan.
This actually may be grounds for impeachment.
h/t Drudge
This is a carrot to get nuclear-wannabe states to comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Right now, there is no real incentive to refrain from developing nukes that is not far outweighed by the reality that, once a state has nuclear weapons, the rest of the world is forced to take it more seriously and cut it more slack (North Korea and Pakistan, anyone?).
ReplyDeleteIf the threat of force won't change their minds, what makes you think being nice will change their minds. Further, a country doesn't even have to build a nulear bomb, now they can go after a biological or chemical bomb and know that the U.S. won't retaliate with the big one. And even Obama believes what he is doing is correct, why let your enemey know?
ReplyDeleteJill, it is just like gun control. Criminals will not follow the rules. A country that supports terrorists or wants to do America harm will not play nice based on words from the President. Vegas Badger is correct that the President should not let retaliation plans be known, other than that all options are on the able.
ReplyDelete