Barack Obama recently went against the Generals' advice, and changed the US nuclear weapons policy... for the better in my opinion It basically states that the United States will NOT use nuclear weapons to retaliate against non nuclear attacks including biological or chemical warfare and cyber attacks. Also, the United States new policy means that we will never be allowed to use nuclear weapons on a country that does not have them.
This new policy has been implemented in the hopes of giving other countries such as China and Russia some incentive for them too to devote themselves to a world without nuclear arms.
Of course there has been some opposition from the Right, but they seem to forget that Ronald Regan... their JESUS was also a strong advocate for a world without Nuclear weapons and would have supported this policy. Just sayin', also recognize that there has been support from the right too. So who opposed it? Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin obviously, and I wouldn't be surprised if Fox News sides with them.
Idk, what do you all think? Will Fox News side with Palin and Bachman? Who do you think is right? And do you think this will be enough incentive to see SOME improvement with the reduction of nuclear arms from other countries?
Not exactly the best OP I know, but let's build off of it lol
I think Fox News (or at least O'Reilly) are going against anything Obama a conservative didn't come up with first. Reagan, though the greatest president since...maybe Jackson? I don't know, I don't rank Lincoln too high ever since I found out about Maryland. Now, if Reagan would rise from the dead and endorse almost ANYONE, I know that at least I would follow that person as if Saint Paul told me too. I think that no nukes against no nuke countries is a good policy, if not merely because in the long run we'll be hurt as much as them after all this "nation" business is cleared up. Improvement in nuclear policy is inevitable and enviable, but America and the E.U. shouldn't delay in stopping Iran with all the means they have if Iran causes any MASSIVE (I say massive, like, say, nuking Israel or mass genocide of hundreds of thousands of people) disturbance. If China and Russia go along with this, we can just start the party for 2012 and not worry about anyone nuking the world. (yeah, I went off topic...)
Reagan, though the greatest president since...maybe Jackson?
Ok... but... really? Reagan was a good president, and so was Jackson. However Jackson ordered the Trail of Tears and was extremely cruel to Native Americans. Harry Truman greatly surpasses both of them if you ask me. But that is my opinion, and you have yours.
Now back on topic: Well not really much to say really, I agree with you for the most part.
Yeah, at first I thought Lincoln, because the whole "ACTUAL LIBERTY PART", but ahh...I never saw him again after reading about what happened in Maryland. And i wanted someone good from the 1800's, and didn't feel like saying Jefferson or anyone. Jefferson was good, most President's are. I never really liked Truman, he's a Coolidge for me ( I actually rank Coolidge higher than Wilson, 'cause Wilson sort of looked the other way at Britain's complete naval blockade of Germany, that CAUSED the submarine, yeah, of topic) So yeah, felt like saying someone from 1800's. And note the maybe. Never been a real fan of Jackson, but liked his treatment of the banks. You gotta love how history books either skip over or study deeply a president's faults/good spots. (I do talk from a conservative American standpoint, if not a slightly mutated one than the usual) Yeah, Truman was actually really good, but wanted SOMEONE from 1800's who most people will know, and wasn't either a Founding Father or a drunkard or a suspender of Constitutional Rights for almost an entire state. Ok, I'll shut up before I get on a rant that is 5 times as large as this is now.
well i have a question. we were talking about this in history today actually, which makes sense since we're getting into more present day history. Is it true that the US is only disarming a certain amount of our nuclear weapons? And is it also true that if we need to, we can rearm them? I wanna know before i start debating.
It'd be cool if we actually got back onto the topic *cough*
Anyway I think the plan is great, it gives us extra trump cards against terrorist states and allows us to attempt to reduce the amount of nuclear weapons world wide at the same time.
Jesus I even heard of this policy from my peers and they never talk about American policies since it has nothing to do with us really, this just shows how big it is.
I know this doesn't have much to do with the OP but oh well I wanted to say this lol.
I even heard of this policy from my peers and they never talk about American policies since it has nothing to do with us really, this just shows how big it is.
You may not think you're directly affected now but later, when you begin voting these issues will be important. You're never too young to learn how our government works.
Has this policy been ratified yet?
It should, it's always good to keep reducing our nuclear weapons but Russia could argue that the US still holds the most.
Is it true that the US is only disarming a certain amount of our nuclear weapons? And is it also true that if we need to, we can rearm them?
I've only read the scroll ticker on ABC, this morning, it says we'll reduce by a third. That's what I was using in by comment above about the possibility of Russia using this same-same 1/3 reduction as still not being 'equal'. I don't have an answer for your second question since I haven't read the whole policy from Obama. You can check White House.org for all of his policies.
Fox news? Can you even count them as a relevant news source anymore?
Why not? I double check all news sources against what the 'Washington Post', 'Huffington' and other reliable Political sources say when I want the 'truth'.
Well **** guys, at least we won't annihilate people in the process of safely eliminating a 'threat' like say. *cough* North Korea *cough*
If I'm understanding you correctly, I think this is a great policy if we promise not to 'nuke' 'nuclear-free' nations.
I do hope though that this policy is worded in such a way that allows us to retaliate against nuclear armed countries, regardless of what they 'state' they do or, don't have in their arsenals.
Here again though, I've not read the entire policy.
Umm..his name is crazydumdum... He is a crazican. And why would we elect a conservative after the "conservative" Bush? There was a small depression in the early 20's, but the governments didn't mess with the economy and it faded away and morphed into mass prosperity. Even if behind that prosperity is something we shouldn't wish to speak of.
Well **** guys, at least we won't annihilate people in the process of safely eliminating a 'threat' like say. *cough* North Korea *cough*
U.S. is shutting down 1/3 of total nuclear weapons. We are promising to not use nuclear weapons against those without them and against those that have no probable cause for becoming a threat. North Korea is the same reason here. We have no refutable proof that they are a threat to us, so under this doctrine, we are leaving them alone, "nuclear-ly".
