Article

2010-04-07 Home Front: WoT

New B.O. policy limits US use of nuclear arms

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2010-04-07 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11134 views ] Top

#1 Uh, uh, OWG-US MISSLE DEFENSE NEEDS TARP + OBAMACARE???

Gut nuthin.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2010-04-07 00:16|| 2010-04-07 00:16|| Front Page Top

#2 YAHOO/OTHER > OBAMA: NUCLEAR TERRORISM [+ NucProliferation] THE TOP THREAT TO US.

Again, IMO Year 2012 > PAN-ISLAMIST NUCLEARIZATION > IRAN declares it has Nukes.

* Also IMO, POST-2012 ASAP ATAP > RADICAL ISLAM, MILTERRS declare they now possess NUKES = ADVANCED WMDS = NBC-CBRN(E)? WEAPS/MILTECHS.

IMO the Islamists can't wait for Year 2020 for the USA to improve + deploy EFFECTIVE RELIABLE GMD-TMD IN MIDEAST + AROUND THE WORLD.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2010-04-07 01:09|| 2010-04-07 01:09|| Front Page Top

#3 New B.O. policy limits US use of nuclear arms.

Seems like we're already kinda stingy with em' to me. Do we really need another policy on that?

Posted by Cheresh Black7582 2010-04-07 01:54|| 2010-04-07 01:54|| Front Page Top

Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the sinktrap. Further violations may result in banning.

Posted by Cheresh Black7582 2010-04-07 01:56|| 2010-04-07 01:56|| Front Page Top

Posted by Grising McGurque4957 2010-04-07 02:30|| 2010-04-07 02:30|| Front Page Top

#6 Barb! I'm setting up the lawn chairs and we'll be needing some popcorn soon.

Posted by gorb 2010-04-07 02:53|| 2010-04-07 02:53|| Front Page Top

#7 FREEREPUBLIC > NEW US NUCLEAR POLICY FOCUSES ON TERRORISTS, ROGUE STATES.

* SAME > [USN] NAVY CHANGES OR US POWER FADES.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2010-04-07 03:20|| 2010-04-07 03:20|| Front Page Top

#8 Posted by Grising McGurque4957

You may wish to have a look at your Websters.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-04-07 04:52|| 2010-04-07 04:52|| Front Page Top

#9 "Devastating Conventional Retaliation" is no credible deterrent. There was no such retaliation after 9/11. It won't happen now or in the future even in case a chemical attack kills a couple of thousand Americans or Europeans, the feelings of enemy civilians could be hurt after all.

NATO 1949-2010 RIP

There's another aspect to this:

Obama will now pressure Israel to forswear nuclear retaliation in case of an attack with biological or chemical weapons by Syria/Hezbollah/Iran.

Posted by Jiggs Gleatle9493 2010-04-07 06:29|| 2010-04-07 06:29|| Front Page Top

#10 Jimmy Carter is looking more and more like the best case scenario.

Posted by Black Bart Ebberens7700 2010-04-07 06:51|| 2010-04-07 06:51|| Front Page Top

#11 So would BO tell his Secret Service to go home or recommend they be reassigned since they are not needed anymore? I'm sure would-be assassins would say: "O.K. I'm going to change my ways; I've seen the light. Obama has inspired me."

Posted by JohnQC 2010-04-07 08:54|| 2010-04-07 08:54|| Front Page Top

#12 Meanwhile in related domestic disarmament news:

The United Nations and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are moving forward with their plan to confiscate your guns.

The United States joined 152 other countries in support of the Arms Trade Treaty Resolution, which establishes the dates for the 2012 UN conference intended to attack American sovereignty by stripping Americans of the right to keep and bear arms.

Former United Nations ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners about the Arms Trade Treaty and says the UN is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but theres no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.

Posted by JohnQC 2010-04-07 09:36|| 2010-04-07 09:36|| Front Page Top

#13 Fool.

I can't wait for 2012.

Posted by lex 2010-04-07 10:48|| 2010-04-07 10:48|| Front Page Top

#14 Policy on this means nothing. This is propaganda and not worth the ink it takes to print it. Two second before pulling thetriggeron a nuke, the pres can have a policy change. Afterall, policy is not law, and the pres giving policy to control only his actions in crisis is dumb.

Posted by 49 Pan 2010-04-07 13:42|| 2010-04-07 13:42|| Front Page Top

#15 Posted by: Grising McGurque4957

Our old friend Play4Keeps. The man is not only a troll, he apparently has the vocabulary of a not very bright kindergartner.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-04-07 16:41|| 2010-04-07 16:41|| Front Page Top

#16 I can always get one with niggardly.
They're too easy!
And condone? "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means".

Posted by Cheresh Black7582 2010-04-07 18:22|| 2010-04-07 18:22|| Front Page Top

#17 CB7582 stop feeding the trolls or be considered one yourself.

- annoyed mod

Posted by lotp 2010-04-07 18:54|| 2010-04-07 18:54|| Front Page Top

#18 dont blame me, I know what niggardly and condone mean.
Blame the dumbass troll.

Posted by Thains Untervehr9750 2010-04-07 21:03|| 2010-04-07 21:03|| Front Page Top

23:43 JosephMendiola
23:36 JosephMendiola
23:32 JosephMendiola
23:26 Redneck Jim
23:24 trailing wife
23:13 JosephMendiola
23:11 JosephMendiola
23:07 JosephMendiola
23:06 phil_b
23:04 Phiter Stalin5608
22:48 Barbara Skolaut
22:43 trailing wife
22:39 Redneck Jim
22:33 Asymmetrical Triangulation
22:26 gromky
22:08 Frank G
22:08 Barney Frank
21:44 phil_b
21:25 Pappy
21:19 JosephMendiola
21:11 ryuge
21:03 Thains Untervehr9750
20:56 Frank G
20:41 Kelly