Obama Says No Nuclear Deterrent(Even In Self Defense)

[MurrayFiend]

Anyone who believes he is strong on national security is fooling themselves.

TBD

[tin00can]

Do you really believe that? If so, you're even dumber than I think you are, which is pushing it. And oh yeah, as far as national security goes, he still has Bush beat as far as keeping our country safe from major terrorist attacks. Bush had one eight months into his term, Obama has gone 14 months without one. Thanks, Obama!

It's funny wartching you get all butthurt over everything Obama does.

[Ugmo]

And oh yeah, as far as national security goes, he still has Bush beat as far as keeping our country safe from major terrorist attacks. Bush had one eight months into his term, Obama has gone 14 months without one.

You forgot the crotch bomber.

[dtmfs]

You forgot the crotch bomber.

that was really nerve racking listening to all the conservative pundits scream about how unsafe america was under Obama and how dare they read him his miranda rights, especially considering under Bush terrorists caught in the US were dealt with the same. plus nothing happened to account for all their bullshit whining, underwear dude was luckily a bumbling terrorist but limbaugh and beck were acting like it was 9/11 all over again.

[TravisBickelsMohawk]

I hope Obama doesn't take his national security lessons from Bush. We're liable to lose yet another major office building. Among other things.

[WhiteHouseSubsAC]

Maybe he's setting everyone up to believe that we won't use nukes, then POW!

/Nagasaki'ed.

[TravisBickelsMohawk]

Maybe he's setting everyone up to believe that we won't use nukes, then POW!

/Nagasaki'ed.

Good point! We all know how sneaky those black folks are.

[upinsmoke]

I think we have enough of a conventional arsenal to take care of any threat without having to resort to the nuclear weapons stockpile at all.

[tin00can]

Do you really believe that?

Should we not believe our own president?

as far as national security goes, he still has Bush beat as far as keeping our country safe from major terrorist attacks.

Noticed the choice of adjective you threw in there!

It's funny wartching you get all butthurt over everything Obama does.

Ya since this is no big deal at all. Just our safety. And boy do I feel safer now knowing that we have almost no nuclear deterrent left because of this guy. I'm surprised you have no concerns here. Well, not really. It is "your guy" so...

How do we have "almost no nuclear deterrent left"? Did all of our bombs suddenly disappear? You're getting all twisted up over posturing. Not only that, do you really think the US would ever use nuclear weapons again? Give this a little thought before you answer.

Second point: I never said I have no concerns. Where did you get that? Again, for such a picky guy you're loose with your interpretations of what others say and don't say. I'm just not going all Chicken Little like you.

Finally: show me where I've ever said Obama is my guy.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

How do we have "almost no nuclear deterrent left"? Did all of our bombs suddenly disappear?

I am referring to the fact that a certain state could launch a massive biological attack on the U.S. killing thousands if not potentially millions with the right virus and we could not respond likewise. It's inviting disaster. If Obama feels this way fine. Just don't announce it to the world. This guy is in way over his head.

Really? What certain state? What virus?

do you really think the US would ever use nuclear weapons again?

I do if the U.S. was attacked by another country using WMD's. Absolutely.

So, this whole thing is a bullshit argument and you have nothing to fear.

show me where I've ever said Obama is my guy.

If you voted for him he's your guy. If you did not then you have no investment in him. You tell me.

[/quote]
He's the president, whether or not one voted for him. All US citizens, including you, have an investment in him as a result.

[tin00can]

How do we have "almost no nuclear deterrent left"? Did all of our bombs suddenly disappear?

I am referring to the fact that a certain state could launch a massive biological attack on the U.S. killing thousands if not potentially millions with the right virus and we could not respond likewise. It's inviting disaster. If Obama feels this way fine. Just don't announce it to the world. This guy is in way over his head.

do you really think the US would ever use nuclear weapons again?

I do if the U.S. was attacked by another country using WMD's. Absolutely.

show me where I've ever said Obama is my guy.

If you voted for him he's your guy. If you did not then you have no investment in him. You tell me.

Holy fuck, man. I think I've made it perfectly clear that I didn't vote for Obama. I've said it several times, and I've even said in in responses to you. I really need to rethink what little credit I was giving you for having some shred of intelligence. As for having no investment in him...he's my president, whether or not I like him and whether or not I voted for him, same as with Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon. I certainly have an investment in him.

As for Obama being in over his head: he still has a better record than Bush at a similar point in his presidency. Frankly, I'm kind of surprised some sort of attack similar in scope to 9/11 hasn't happened since the election; I expected it regardless of who was elected. So if Obama is indeed in over his head, I guess Bush was drowning.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Really? What certain state? What virus?

If a state or state sponsored terrorist organization released genetically engineered weapons grade smallpox within the borders of the United States casualties would be very high. God forbid. Other biological agents could cause the same widespread destruction on the population.

As frightening as the threat of anthrax has been, the nightmare scenario for biological warfare calls for another pathogen—one which, unlike anthrax, can be transmitted from person to person.

Smallpox fits this description well. It is spread through face-to-face contact, by means of infected saliva or respiratory droplets, usually in a closed setting. It can also be spread by infected linens or clothes: It was probably first used as a biological weapon during the French and Indian Wars by British soldiers who deliberately gave blankets that had been used by smallpox patients to American Indians.

Smallpox is fatal in approximately 30% of cases. As a virus, it is not treatable by antibiotics. No American civilian has been vaccinated since 1972, and it is likely that those who were before that have little, if any, immunity left.

Is this cause for panic or resignation, born of a grim reality that there is nothing we can do to protect ourselves? No, not at all. A review of medical and historical realities should give us confidence that if the unthinkable occurs, we could mount an effective campaign against the biological terrorism of smallpox.

First, smallpox no longer exists in nature. The last naturally occurring case was seen in 1977, in Somalia. At present, smallpox, at least officially, is stored in only two repositories: in freezers at the headquarters of the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and at a Russian virology installation known as Vector, in Siberia. While there is speculation about rogue nations possessing smallpox as a biological weapon, there is no hard evidence to confirm this.

Second, smallpox is not immediately contagious. A person infected with smallpox does not become contagious until he or she is too sick to be walking around. If you are wondering if the guy next to you on the subway has smallpox and decide to hold your breath between stops just in case, you are worrying needlessly. In the first 12 days or so after infection, the patient feels fine and is not contagious. On or about the 12th day, there is a spike in fever, and then, after a couple of days, the appearance of a rash—the highly visible "pox"—which is the signature of smallpox.

The beginning of the onset of the rash signals communicability. By this time, the patient is bedridden, or in a medical facility, which is why most secondary infections occur at home or in a hospital, not in schools or other public places. For this and other reasons, smallpox transmission throughout the population is generally slower than for such diseases as measles or chickenpox. Of course, should a terrorist attempt to spread the virus by means of an aerosol release, this limitation on venues for infection would not be relevant. But such means of transmission is at this point only theoretical.

Third, it would be difficult to acquire and disseminate the virus—much more so than anthrax. Even if there were an illicit source of smallpox, a terrorist would have to overcome sophisticated scientific and technological obstacles to cultivate it (one would need to grow the virus in eggs or animal cells) and disseminate it (putting it in the form of inhalable particles). Theoretically, it would be possible to have an individual "suicide vector" walk around once contagious, but one might question whether even the most devoted terrorist would be physically capable of effectively spreading the disease given the severity of the illness once it becomes communicable.

Fourth, we have medical means of treating infected persons. While there is no Cipro equivalent to treat smallpox, there is evidence that vaccination within three or four days after infection can prevent or significantly ameliorate subsequent illness. There are some 15 million units of smallpox vaccine available now, and there is an urgent effort underway to try to stretch that supply to cover as many as 150 million people. Hundreds of millions more doses are on order.

The vaccine offers some immunity immediately, and is in full effect after a week. In addition to the use of vaccine after infection, there may be an effective antiviral drug, Cidofovir (made by Gilead Sciences of Foster City, Calif.), sold under the brand name Vistide. This drug won FDA approval in June 1996 for the treatment of cytomegalovirus retinitis, a sight-threatening viral infection in AIDS patients. In March 1998, researchers at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease reported that Cidofovir prevented death and disease associated with a pox disease in primates—monkeypox—similar to smallpox in humans.

Fifth, we have standard protocol in place for dealing with infectious disease. Right now, physicians (nearly all of whom have never seen a case of smallpox) are being educated to be on high alert for the symptoms of smallpox, particularly the high fever and unique rash which appears on the face and extremities. Should a case be diagnosed—and make no mistake, one case would be considered an epidemic and a world-wide catastrophe—the patient would be isolated, all exposed medical personnel would be vaccinated, as would emergency personnel. Case contact tracing to identify recent close contacts of "Patient Zero" would begin, and they would be immunized and/or isolated.

We have something of a model protocol for this emergency activity: In New York City in late March 1947, a man arrived from Mexico, sick with smallpox. He was hospitalized, but the disease was not recognized until two other cases in the hospital were identified. These individuals were isolated, medical personnel inoculated, and a decision made to inoculate all New Yorkers who had not been vaccinated recently. In just over a month, more than 6 million residents were immunized. In the end, that smallpox epidemic resulted in only 12 cases—demonstrating the effectiveness of preparedness and a systematic, scientifically sound response.

The better technology and medical knowledge we have today should offer even more assurance.

http://www.acsh.org/news/newsID.272/news_detail.asp

Terrorist groups and insurgents rely on locally available materials and nonstate-affiliated personnel to acquire conventional weapons. At best, terrorist attempts to employ CBRN hazards as weapons will result in small-scale, single attacks with limited casualties.

There is no better example than Iraqi insurgents' failed use of chlorine tanks within vehicle-embedded improvised explosive devices. Those insurgents stopped employing this tactic because it didn't work, yet military analysts point to this singularity and call it the beginning of terrorist WMD ambitions.

It is not easy to obtain military-grade CBRN material, to make military-grade CBRN material or to effectively disperse such agents. Without access to tons of CBR material and a good dispersion system, the capability to cause mass casualties decreases dramatically. If terrorists attempt to develop a WMD-like capability, they will attract much more attention and are liable to be interdicted at multiple points in the process of executing their plot.

Certainly, it is possible to obtain toxic inhalation hazards, develop small amounts of biological toxins, or gain quantities of radiological material and develop improvised methods to disperse them. Nonstate actors can employ improvised CBRN weapons, but these are not WMD capabilities. Nation-state WMD programs are still a significant threat, but we need to stop acting as if nonstate actors can duplicate that threat.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4172529

So, this whole thing is a bullshit argument and you have nothing to fear.

Because you say so or because for decades enemies of this country did have something to fear in regards to a nuclear counter strike in the event of such an attack?

viewtopic.php?p=4649951#p4649951
In this post you claim the US has been left defenseless.
viewtopic.php?p=4652572#p4652572
Here you are confident the US will defend itself. You can't hold both claims as truth. This ain't your sex life. You can't play for both teams on this too.

He's the president, whether or not one voted for him. All US citizens, including you, have an investment in him as a result.

He is my President. Something many would not say when Bush was in office.

Why would anyone say Obama was their president when Bush was still in office? That's crazy talk.

[JakeYonkel]

As for having no investment in him...he's my president, whether or not I like him and whether or not I voted for him, same as with Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon. I certainly have an investment in him.

You're dating yourself there, buddy!

[SmokingGun]

Fuck You, Buddy

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Is this cause for panic or resignation, born of a grim reality that there is nothing we can do to protect ourselves? No, not at all. A review of medical and historical realities should give us confidence that if the unthinkable occurs, we could mount an effective campaign against the biological terrorism of smallpox.

http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume6/issu ... urzac.html

American Preparedness Against the Threat of Terrorism


It is difficult to predict the likelihood of a terrorist smallpox attack on the United States. As long as stockpiles exist, an attack is possible. The worst-case scenario is bleak: Officials might not be able to contain a wide-spread outbreak of a genetically-engineered virus without large numbers of casualties.

The government is likely prepared to deal with a small-scale attack perpetrated with variola that has not been genetically altered. Such isolated attacks are more likely than large-scale, sophisticated attacks with genetically engineered viruses: The risks to the public caused by mass-vaccination are far greater than the risk of such a sophisticated attack. While it is unlikely that smallpox will reemerge as a national epidemic in the United States, the acquisition of enough vaccine for all Americans and efforts to change the public health system will help ensure protection in the long run.

viewtopic.php?p=4649951#p4649951
In this post you claim the US has been left defenseless.

Really? Then you'll be able to produce the quote of mine in which I said that.

He's practically begging for an attack. Anyone who believes he is strong on national security is fooling themselves. What a joke.

viewtopic.php?p=4652572#p4652572
Here you are confident the US will defend itself.

Pre-Obama. Should make that clear. Things have changed. And not for the better.

You mean the US is defenseless, in other words?

[Ugmo]

Tee hee....

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-a ... ang-treaty


Is there anyone left here who actually believes YourMomma doesn't watch Fox News 24/7?

[Nevermind]

Is there any doubt that most of the liberals on this board get their main source of news from a liberal comedian on a comedy channel?

[Ugmo]

Is there any doubt that most of the liberals on this board get their main source of news from a liberal comedian on a comedy channel?

Can't handle the truth, eh? Fox News made shit up and YourMomma got clowned again.

[Ugmo]

Fox News made shit up and YourMomma got clowned again.

My link was from the NY Times. More fail.

Oh, I know exactly what you did. You watch a steady diet of Fox News all day so you saw Newt Gingrich spouting that nonsense and decided you'd post it here. But you can't post a Fox News link because people would take you even less seriously than they already do, so you searched for some other source. Thinking that none of us lefties could possibly argue with the NYT (as if you read the Times regularly ), you posted an excerpt from their article.... but of course cut off your copy and paste just before this part:

Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new 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.

It is amusing how transparent you are.

[bane]

I love how Obama's publicly stating that he probably won't blow up the world is some kind of bad thing. Pssst: it's a very good thing when the guy with his hand on the button understands the need for restraint, just in case you're too dumb to figure that out.

[Ugmo]

I love how Obama's publicly stating that he probably won't blow up the world is some kind of bad thing. Pssst: it's a very good thing when the guy with his hand on the button understands the need for restraint, just in case you're too dumb to figure that out.

Yeah, and I think there is bipartisan support for this in general.

The deal is that some in the opposition and the GOP's media mouthpieces basically wake up every morning, read what the president is up to and then see how they can frame the narrative to make it negative and rile up their base. I don't know if you want to check out the John Stewart link above, but Obama is basically doing and saying the same thing Reagan said in the 80s. But this time airheads like Sarah Palin are criticizing it because it's the Democrat who's saying it.

You'll see the same thing with every single issue until Obama leaves office I think. Some feel they need to be against whatever Obama is for.

[bane]

I love how Obama's publicly stating that he probably won't blow up the world is some kind of bad thing. Pssst: it's a very good thing when the guy with his hand on the button understands the need for restraint, just in case you're too dumb to figure that out.

Yeah, and I think there is bipartisan support for this in general.

The deal is that same in the opposition and the GOP's media mouthpieces basically wake up every morning, read what the president is up to and then see how they can frame the narrative to make it negative and rile up their base. I don't know if you want to check out the John Stewart link above, but Obama is basically doing and saying the same thing Reagan said in the 80s. But this time airheads like Sarah Palin are criticizing it because it's the Democrat who's saying it.

You'll see the same thing with every single issue until Obama leaves office I think. Some feel they need to be against whatever Obama is for.

Sure, I just think it's hilarious that there are so many people out there that so fully buy into whatever propaganda they're sold. You'd think that people might be able to formulate an opinion of their own on an individual issue without being told what to think, but alas, non. People are fucking stupid. Both sides of the aisle.

[dtmfs]

LMAO@ Hannity the other night, He said something to the effect "If we get cyber-attacked they can be comfortable knowing we won't nuke em'" Cyber-attacked!!?? Yeah that's a call for a Nuclear strike if there ever was one, we can't have the taliban hacking into youtube and chemical crop-dustin our facebook farms.

[Ugmo]

Sure, I just think it's hilarious that there are so many people out there that so fully buy into whatever propaganda they're sold. You'd think that people might be able to formulate an opinion of their own on an individual issue without being told what to think, but alas, non. People are fucking stupid. Both sides of the aisle.

I'm sure we'll see the same thing from some on the left as soon as a Republican is president again. Health care was the same deal. Whether or not you approve of the bill that passed, it's ridiculous that it was largely based on a Republican plan from 1993.... yet Fox News played the whole thing up like it's the first domino on the road to communism. Sean Hannity isn't stupid - he knows damn well there is nothing "socialist" about the health care bill, just like he knows damn well there is nothing wrong with Obama's nuclear policy. But it's all a big game to him: how can we demonize the other side to improve our ratings and make money? And then someone like YourMomma shows up to gleefully regurgitate the Fox News narrative as if we're dumb enough to believe that shit.

A lot of these issues are way too important to be hijacked for political gain, and that's the part that pisses me off. Whether you're Fox News, MSNBC, the GOP, the Democratic Party, the Tea Party, whatever... if you have a legitimate criticism of a policy, then by all means voice it. But if you're just pretending to be against it because the other guy is for it, that ain't right.

[bane]

Sure, I just think it's hilarious that there are so many people out there that so fully buy into whatever propaganda they're sold. You'd think that people might be able to formulate an opinion of their own on an individual issue without being told what to think, but alas, non. People are fucking stupid. Both sides of the aisle.

I'm sure we'll see the same thing from some on the left as soon as a Republican is president again. Health care was the same deal. Whether or not you approve of the bill that passed, it's ridiculous that it was largely based on a Republican plan from 1993.... yet Fox News played the whole thing up like it's the first domino on the road to communism. Sean Hannity isn't stupid - he knows damn well there is nothing "socialist" about the health care bill, just like he knows damn well there is nothing wrong with Obama's nuclear policy. But it's all a big game to him: how can we demonize the other side to improve our ratings and make money? And then someone like YourMomma shows up to gleefully regurgitate the Fox News narrative as if we're dumb enough to believe that shit.

A lot of these issues are way too important to be hijacked for political gain, and that's the part that pisses me off. Whether you're Fox News, MSNBC, the GOP, the Democratic Party, the Tea Party, whatever... if you have a legitimate criticism of a policy, then by all means voice it. But if you're just pretending to be against it because the other guy is for it, that ain't right.

I agree with that 100%.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

He's practically begging for an attack. Anyone who believes he is strong on national security is fooling themselves. What a joke.

Nowhere did I say that the US has been left defenseless. But you said that I did. Fail.[/quote]
Excellent. So now we both agree the US is not left defenseless by Obama's decision.

BTW, congratulations on getting outFoxed.

[KneelandBobDylan]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-a ... ang-treaty

This kinda says it all.

[tin00can]

Is there any doubt that most of the liberals on this board get their main source of news from a liberal comedian on a comedy channel?

So that's worse than getting your news from a conservative pot-stirrer or emotional retard?

Sadly, it seems like the Daily Show is the only place that calls the cable news channels on their BS.

[tin00can]

He's practically begging for an attack. Anyone who believes he is strong on national security is fooling themselves. What a joke.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html

Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms
By DAVID E. SANGER and PETER BAKER
Published: April 5, 2010


WASHINGTON — President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.

But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.

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 nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Did you notice that this doesn't apply to nations - think Iran, etc - that aren't in compliance with the agreement? Or were you too busy being hysterical and wanting to drop bombs in case of a cyber attack?

[tin00can]

You know who else wanted to reduce nuclear weapons by 1/3?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-a ... ang-treaty

Yep, Reagan. Who knew Obama is more Reagan-esque than the republicans invoking his name over and over?

Wait for the rhetorical Reagan defense in 5, 4, 3...