| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| Obama mulls new nuclear weapons strategy |
| 2010-03-01 |
| US President Barack Obama is making final decisions on a broad new nuclear strategy for the US that will permanently reduce the US nuclear arsenal by thousands of weapons, The New York Times reported. But citing unnamed senior presidential aides, the newspaper said the administration had rejected proposals that the US declare it would never be the first to use nuclear weapons. Mr Obama's new strategy - which would cancel or reverse several initiatives undertaken by the administration of former president George W Bush - will be contained in a nearly completed document called the Nuclear Posture Review, the report said. Aides said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will present Mr Obama with several options. Mr Obama's critics argue that his embrace of a new movement to eliminate nuclear weapons around the world is naive and dangerous, especially at a time of new nuclear threats, particularly from Iran and North Korea, the paper said. But many of his supporters fear that over the past year he has moved too cautiously, and worry that he will retain the existing US policy by leaving open the possibility that the US might use nuclear weapons in response to a biological or chemical attack, perhaps against a nation that does not possess a nuclear arsenal, the paper noted. That is one of the central debates Obama must resolve in the next few weeks, according to his aides. Many elements of the new strategy have already been completed. As described by senior administration and military officials, the strategy commits the US to developing no new nuclear weapons, including the nuclear bunker-busters advocated by the Bush administration, The Timessaid. Mr Obama has already announced that he will spend billions of dollars more on updating America's weapons laboratories to assure the reliability of what he intends to be a much smaller arsenal, the paper recalled. Other officials say that in back-channel discussions with allies, the administration has also been quietly broaching the question of whether to withdraw American tactical nuclear weapons from Europe, where they provide more political reassurance than actual defence, The Times said. Those weapons are believed to be in Germany, Italy, Belgium, Turkey and The Netherlands. At the same time, the new document will steer the US towards more non-nuclear defences, according to the report. It relies more heavily on missile defence, much of it arrayed within striking distance of the Gulf, focused on the emerging threat from Iran. Mr Obama's recently published Quadrennial Defense Review also includes support for a new class of non-nuclear weapons, called "Prompt Global Strike'', that could be fired from the US and hit a target anywhere in less than an hour, The Times said. The idea would be to give the president a non-nuclear option for, say, a large strike on the leadership of al-Qaeda in the mountains of Pakistan, or a pre-emptive attack on an impending missile launch from North Korea, the report pointed out. But under Obama's strategy, the missiles would be based at new sites around the US that might even be open to inspection, so that Russia and China would know that a missile launched from those sites was not nuclear, The Times said. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #10 Amateur |
| Posted by: lex 2010-03-01 20:10 |
| #9 Obama adopts a nuanced European approach ... |
| Posted by: Thavilet Johnson6374 2010-03-01 19:04 |
| #8 Yep, Moj, you're absolutely correct. Is our pres the Manchurian Candidate? |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2010-03-01 14:32 |
| #7 I'd like to see a declaration that we will never be the second to use nuclear weapons. Because, y'see, we already have. Think about it. I'll wait. |
| Posted by: mojo 2010-03-01 13:38 |
| #6 Does it not occur to Obama that his terms of surrenduring our military superiority puts his own Children at risk? |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2010-03-01 13:13 |
| #5 i think preemptive surrender is the only 'strategy' 0-bam is considering |
| Posted by: abu do you love 2010-03-01 12:56 |
| #4 Did Obama think the job description bulletin by OPM read like this: 'If you love helping people, I mean, our enemies, enjoy cooperative teamwork, and thrive in a busy denial infested workplace, the oval office may be for you.' |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2010-03-01 12:49 |
| #3 It relies more heavily on missile defence, much of it arrayed within striking distance of the Gulf, focused on the emerging threat from Iran. Don't I recall Dems getting their panties in a bunch about missile defense not too long ago? |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-03-01 12:28 |
| #2 I understand that putting a warhead rod or whatnot into space will give it some more oomph, but somehow I doubt that Russia/China/etc will be very pleased about a warhead package traveling across their airspace even if they believe and trust it to be non-NCB. Once launched, can these warhead be recalled or otherwise scuttled if, for example, the target moves out or the collateral damage assessment changes? Missile defense, great idea...are they talking the previous idea of land systems or the halfway suggestion of more missile ships? The author of the article does not seem to think there is much value to a political commitment. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2010-03-01 11:51 |
| #1 It relies more heavily on missile defence, much of it arrayed within striking distance of the Gulf, focused on the emerging threat from Iran. Ummmm, didn't he just back down on this 'cause Pooty Poot got his knickers twisted? This buffoon of a Pres. is dangerous in the extreme. I expect a major conflagration, probably WMD based, somewhere in the world before 2013. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2010-03-01 08:45 |