DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**bestbyV** · 10-05-2010, 12:18 AM

my understanding and interest in this issue is he has announced changes to our response postures ala what/how we will or won't respond to, not so much in the mechanical delivery but when we will employ nukes.

These are my thoughts also. I was going to begin my own thread on this last night, but was too tired to take the time. I was some what surprised that no one had yet begun a thread sooner. What bothered me with this NPR was not putting conventional warheads on ICBMs, though this does increase the threat of accidental nuclear retaliation. What I found troublesome is the nuclear posture that “the United States is now … declaring that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations. This revised assurance is intended to underscore the security benefits of adhering to and fully complying with the NPT and persuade non-nuclear weapon states party to the Treaty to work with the United States and other interested parties to adopt effective measures to strengthen the non-proliferation regime.”

The report goes on to assert that “the United States affirms that any state eligible for the assurance that uses chemical or biological weapons against the United States or its allies and partners would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response – and that any individuals responsible for the attack, whether national leaders or military commanders, would be held fully accountable.”

Why am I bothered by this change? For the past 65+ year, the American nuclear posture has been, in a sense, an uncertain threat of when and how nuclear weapons would be used. If the Soviet’s invaded Western Europe with overwhelming conventional forces, there was the threat that we would use our nuclear strike capabilities against them. If any nation attacked the U.S. or its allies or its security partners with a nuclear strike or chemical or biological weapons there was the threat that we would use our nuclear weapons.

Would we have ever followed through on these threats? We never had to answer that question, since the threat alone acted as a deterrence to such attacks. The deterrence was “uncertainty.” Now our adversaries know what they can get away with.

While the claim that, “This revised assurance is intended to underscore the security benefits of adhering to and fully complying with the NPT ..,” I believe that the unintended consequences of this change to our nuclear posture will be to encourage those states who desire weapons of mass destruction to focus on chemical and biological weapons. With the potential -- given the rapid technological development in genetics, bioengineering, and even nanotechnology -- of creating an even more dangerous weapon than nuclear weapons. And a belligerent nation could work at developing such weapons, while “fully complying with the NPT.”

Sure, some may claim “yes, but the NPR asserts that such a nation would still face the threat of a massive conventional attack from U.S. forces.” That is true, but a conventional strike takes weeks, if not months, to assemble the necessary forces to make such a strike possible. A nuclear strike takes 15 to 20 minutes. Which threat do you believe holds more of a threat to those who would wish to do us harm?

Another statement I found troubling is that now, “The United States will not develop new nuclear warheads. Life Extension Programs (LEPs) will use only nuclear components based on previously tested designs, and will not support new military missions or provide for new military capabilities.”

The Nuclear Posture Review Report acknowledges that both Russia and China, while neither are the threats they were during the Cold War, are continuing to upgrade and improve their own nuclear arsenal. Is it wise to stop all new development in nuclear warheads, since our closest peers are continuing to do so? How long will it take them to develop new and better weapons, if we stop our own research and development?

I believe that “the President’s vision of a world without nuclear weapons” is naïve. Trying to put the nuclear danger back into Pandora’s Box is a foolish dream and impossible. Like so many of Obama’s other policies, this one is wrong and unfortunately very dangerous to American security.

All quotes from: http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010...w%20Report.pdf

Tashi deleks,

M

10-05-2010, 12:18 AM	#27
bestbyV Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 406 Senior Member	my understanding and interest in this issue is he has announced changes to our response postures ala what/how we will or won't respond to, not so much in the mechanical delivery but when we will employ nukes. These are my thoughts also. I was going to begin my own thread on this last night, but was too tired to take the time. I was some what surprised that no one had yet begun a thread sooner. What bothered me with this NPR was not putting conventional warheads on ICBMs, though this does increase the threat of accidental nuclear retaliation. What I found troublesome is the nuclear posture that “the United States is now … declaring that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations. This revised assurance is intended to underscore the security benefits of adhering to and fully complying with the NPT and persuade non-nuclear weapon states party to the Treaty to work with the United States and other interested parties to adopt effective measures to strengthen the non-proliferation regime.” The report goes on to assert that “the United States affirms that any state eligible for the assurance that uses chemical or biological weapons against the United States or its allies and partners would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response – and that any individuals responsible for the attack, whether national leaders or military commanders, would be held fully accountable.” Why am I bothered by this change? For the past 65+ year, the American nuclear posture has been, in a sense, an uncertain threat of when and how nuclear weapons would be used. If the Soviet’s invaded Western Europe with overwhelming conventional forces, there was the threat that we would use our nuclear strike capabilities against them. If any nation attacked the U.S. or its allies or its security partners with a nuclear strike or chemical or biological weapons there was the threat that we would use our nuclear weapons. Would we have ever followed through on these threats? We never had to answer that question, since the threat alone acted as a deterrence to such attacks. The deterrence was “uncertainty.” Now our adversaries know what they can get away with. While the claim that, “This revised assurance is intended to underscore the security benefits of adhering to and fully complying with the NPT ..,” I believe that the unintended consequences of this change to our nuclear posture will be to encourage those states who desire weapons of mass destruction to focus on chemical and biological weapons. With the potential -- given the rapid technological development in genetics, bioengineering, and even nanotechnology -- of creating an even more dangerous weapon than nuclear weapons. And a belligerent nation could work at developing such weapons, while “fully complying with the NPT.” Sure, some may claim “yes, but the NPR asserts that such a nation would still face the threat of a massive conventional attack from U.S. forces.” That is true, but a conventional strike takes weeks, if not months, to assemble the necessary forces to make such a strike possible. A nuclear strike takes 15 to 20 minutes. Which threat do you believe holds more of a threat to those who would wish to do us harm? Another statement I found troubling is that now, “The United States will not develop new nuclear warheads. Life Extension Programs (LEPs) will use only nuclear components based on previously tested designs, and will not support new military missions or provide for new military capabilities.” The Nuclear Posture Review Report acknowledges that both Russia and China, while neither are the threats they were during the Cold War, are continuing to upgrade and improve their own nuclear arsenal. Is it wise to stop all new development in nuclear warheads, since our closest peers are continuing to do so? How long will it take them to develop new and better weapons, if we stop our own research and development? I believe that “the President’s vision of a world without nuclear weapons” is naïve. Trying to put the nuclear danger back into Pandora’s Box is a foolish dream and impossible. Like so many of Obama’s other policies, this one is wrong and unfortunately very dangerous to American security. All quotes from: http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010...w%20Report.pdf Tashi deleks, M
	Quote