PDA

View Full Version : White House Is Rethinking Nuclear Policy



Rockntractor
03-01-2010, 01:08 PM
Sgent (1000+ posts) Mon Mar-01-10 12:23 AM
Original message
White House Is Rethinking Nuclear Policy (Weapons)
Source: NY Times

WASHINGTON — As President Obama begins making final decisions on a broad new nuclear strategy for the United States, senior aides say he will permanently reduce America’s arsenal by thousands of weapons. But the administration has rejected proposals that the United States declare it would never be the first to use nuclear weapons, aides said.

Mr. Obama’s new strategy — which would annul or reverse several initiatives by the Bush administration — will be contained in a nearly completed document called the Nuclear Posture Review, which all presidents undertake. Aides said Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates will present Mr. Obama with several options on Monday to address unresolved issues in that document, which have been hotly debated within the administration.

First among them is the question of whether, and how, to narrow the circumstances under which the United States will declare it might use nuclear weapons — a key element of nuclear deterrence since the cold war.

Mr. Obama’s decisions on nuclear weapons come as conflicting pressures in his defense policy are intensifying. His critics argue that his embrace of a new movement to eliminate nuclear weapons around the world is nave and dangerous, especially at a time of new nuclear threats, particularly from Iran and North Korea. But many of his supporters fear that over the past year he has moved too cautiously, and worry that he will retain the existing American policy by leaving open the possibility that the United States might use nuclear weapons in response to a biological or chemical attack, perhaps against a nation that does not possess a nuclear arsenal.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us/politics/01nuke.ht...

scottsoperson (117 posts) Mon Mar-01-10 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. i suppose obama may use the nuclear option
of course, repubs used to think the nuclear option was a good thing.
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

FrenchieCat (1000+ posts) Mon Mar-01-10 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. I don't get your cliched talk. Can you come again, so that even I can understand? Thanks!


(from the article) Mr. Obama’s new strategy — which would annul or reverse several initiatives by the Bush administration — will be contained in a nearly completed document called the Nuclear Posture Review, which all presidents undertake.

zipplewrath (1000+ posts) Mon Mar-01-10 07:14 AM
Response to Original message
11. Every President since Kennedy
Basically every president since Kennedy has struggled with this problem to one extent or another. The US always wants to declare "no first use". The problem (besides the fact that of course we already HAVE) is that our entire "defense of Europe" plan relied upon first use as a deterrent. To this day our military plans for deterent and defense against other nuclear enabled countries is based upon "pre-emptive" use. And in our planning for Iran I've heard news stories that they were considering nuclear "bunker busters". I'm dubious that this president will put forth the effort to undo that much military strategy.
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

DevinKline (24 posts) Mon Mar-01-10 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
13. "it would never be the first to use nuclear weapons"
Uhhhhh....did someone forget to call Japan prior to writing that bit?
Yeah, we bad imperial Japan good. Ask the Philippians about that one.

obliviously (1000+ posts) Mon Mar-01-10 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
16. We should sell most of or nukes to our enemies
Edited on Mon Mar-01-10 11:11 AM by obliviously
After all most here are in agreement that everyone else is much more responsible than we are. We could raise money for green energy and health care.
Oh noes, how to reply to this one! They all know they agree but what to say? It looks so retarded in print.

noonwitch
03-01-2010, 02:37 PM
I know I'm just a liberal hippie and all, but I always thought that the US only needs so many nuclear warheads and delivery systems. If our defense system can destroy the world in whatever time frame is currently given (20 minutes?), it is kind of a waste of money and resources to develop the capacity to destroy the world twice over in that time frame.

I also thought that the Mutually Assured Destruction thing we had going with the USSR was not so much to defend the US in an attack, but to engage the soviets in an arms race that they couldn't win, thus bankrupt them in the process. It worked, but it almost bankrupted us in the process. The US started to run up those huge deficits in the 80s.


It's not about how much we spend on our nuclear arsenal, but all about how wisely we spend it. We should have the best arsenal in the world, as far as the newest and most effective technology is concerned, but once there is a missle/warhead for every potential target, how many more do we really need?

FlaGator
03-01-2010, 02:46 PM
I personally think that the U.S. nuclear use strategy should be as broad and general as possible. How about the policy of "We have 'em. Japan can tell you that we're willing to use 'em... so just keep it up and you'll find out when enough is enough.

ralph wiggum
03-01-2010, 03:11 PM
Link?

megimoo
03-01-2010, 07:11 PM
I know I'm just a liberal hippie and all, but I always thought that the US only needs so many nuclear warheads and delivery systems. If our defense system can destroy the world in whatever time frame is currently given (20 minutes?), it is kind of a waste of money and resources to develop the capacity to destroy the world twice over in that time frame.

I also thought that the Mutually Assured Destruction thing we had going with the USSR was not so much to defend the US in an attack, but to engage the soviets in an arms race that they couldn't win, thus bankrupt them in the process. It worked, but it almost bankrupted us in the process. The US started to run up those huge deficits in the 80s.


It's not about how much we spend on our nuclear arsenal, but all about how wisely we spend it. We should have the best arsenal in the world, as far as the newest and most effective technology is concerned, but once there is a missle/warhead for every potential target, how many more do we really need?
You need to come up to date a mite on the status of our nuclear forces .

Fusion-boosted fission weapon warheads have a definite life time.The Neutron generators use in the W-88 use Tritium and Deuterium gas as a neutron booster in the primary that decays with time and needs to be replaced.

The W-88 secondary uses Lithium-6 Deuteride,
Deuterium/Tritium-metal hydride target with Deuterium and Tritium ions.

It's much easier and cheaper to replace the whole W-88 D5 warhead than take each physics package apart to replace the Tritium gas container and test it.They keep separate stores of W-88 for replacement and rotation .

The warheads are kept at strategic Weapons Facility Atlantic Kings Bay In St Marys Georgia,right up the river from the Fleet Bombers garage.

The Submarine Base is the U.S. Atlantic Fleet's home port for U.S. Navy Fleet Ballistic Missile nuclear submarines armed with Trident missile nuclear weapons.

movie buff
03-02-2010, 02:56 PM
obliviously appears to be one of the most aptly- named DUmmies ever. Th only DU handle that would fit him/ her better would be "mind- bendingly stupid."