[Galinastva]

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Iran to take US to UN over 'threat'

The question is, why isn't the US nuclear policy simply "we will not use a nuclear weapon first" instaed of this non-sense.

what kind of savagery is threatening to use a nuclear weapon first against a country that "might" have one or might be working on one, especially after a million Iraqis have died because "maybe" Saddam had 'chemical weapons'.

Surely the combined conventional arms of America and it's allies in the region are sufficient to defend against iran, so why an ambiguous nuclear threat?

I seriously question Obama's 'liberal' credentials and the Nobel Peace Prize which was given to him.

[StivRichardOff]

Yet another Obama appeasement fails to satisfy the whims of a tyrant.

[Viyzarei]

Wait. Using nuclear weapons first ?

Surely there is a threat. In case of an attack by non-NPT countries, or by NPT countries using nuclear weapons, the retaliation is nuclear. In other cases, it's conventional response.
That's for answering an attack, and the exceptions of North Korea and Iran fall into those cases. There is nothing said about what the US would do if they attacked first.
In such case, it is more probable that they would go the same as Irak, going conventional and with ground forces. That is, if americans resort to attacking.

There is a threat, no doubt. Even if the threat is only an interpretation of decisions taken. The same way americans feel threatened by their interpretation of Iran's decisions.
It is another pressure from the US to make Iran comply, and it is another pressure from Iran to lower the support to US.
I guess it wasn't wise, on the international politic, to underline those two exceptions. Now americans on this forum can explain better than me why for them those exceptions were not only necessary but obvious, and what critics would have been raised in America if they were omitted.

Wether americans believe it or not anymore, Obama has to follow their will. Sometimes ?

[fotochicaes]

I would simply say:

Should we or any nation be the object of an attack on their sovereign territory (other than rebellion) their defense shall not be limited by any weapons choice.

[Meenepek]

if the US is serious about non proliferation they would simply state "we won't use a nuclear weapon first", why does the US spend 600billion or whatever on defense , station large numbers of troops in the gulf region with airbases, all at taxpayer expense, and always purchase the most high-tech weaponry then? I can't think of any scenario in which a nuclear first strike would be necessary.
During the cold war there was some ambiguity because the Soviet Army was so strong that the pentagon expected them to roll over NATO forces in the initial stage of a conventional war, NATO had so little confidence that they could stop a Soviet invasion that they publicly stated that they would use tactical nuclear weapons to stem the tide until they could regroup, I honestly don't think they meant it but I think they felt it was necessary to deter the massive Soviet bear. But to direct this statement at N.Korea or Iran, two countries that the US is desperately trying to convince not to go in that direction-- and two countries that have conventional arms that can be defended against conventionally- makes no sense.. I can only conclude that the US is not serious about non-proliferation and instead the just use the wmd issue as an excuse to try to ruin those countries with sanctions..and that this threat is actually for the purpose of encouraging them to obtain nuclear weapons..

[QualityReachOut]

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Iran to take US to UN over 'threat'

The question is, why isn't the US nuclear policy simply "we will not use a nuclear weapon first" instaed of this non-sense.

what kind of savagery is threatening to use a nuclear weapon first against a country that "might" have one or might be working on one, especially after a million Iraqis have died because "maybe" Saddam had 'chemical weapons'.

Surely the combined conventional arms of America and it's allies in the region are sufficient to defend against iran, so why an ambiguous nuclear threat?

I seriously question Obama's 'liberal' credentials and the Nobel Peace Prize which was given to him.

I seriously doubt anyone beleives the US would ever use WMDs against a country first. Thus whatever speech we make to the contrary is pointless. The only scenario I could ever see us using nukes would be if a superpower like china or russia were about to fire theirs off at someone.

On a side note, the UN is continuing to prove what a useless org it is.

[Nifoziyfar]

if the US is serious about non proliferation they would simply state "we won't use a nuclear weapon first", why does the US spend 600billion or whatever on defense , station large numbers of troops in the gulf region with airbases, all at taxpayer expense, and always purchase the most high-tech weaponry then? I can't think of any scenario in which a nuclear first strike would be necessary.

The idea is to be able to project force, and that includes nukes. To let anyone know that messing with us means the end of them, and they may not know how we'll do it. If we start telling them what we will and wont do, you lose that edge. But like I said, I cant beleive anyone actually thinks we would use them first or at all. Its just another tool in our box.

[xiaoselangone]

Hey I suppose we could pledge not to use them first, but I imagine the Japanese might get annoyed and remind us we already DID use them first. What's the point of having nukes if you pledge not to use them first?

[cyslespitocop]

Iran, of all countries, doesn't have a leg to stand on here.

[abossakon]

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Iran to take US to UN over 'threat'

The question is, why isn't the US nuclear policy simply "we will not use a nuclear weapon first" instaed of this non-sense.

what kind of savagery is threatening to use a nuclear weapon first against a country that "might" have one or might be working on one, especially after a million Iraqis have died because "maybe" Saddam had 'chemical weapons'.

Surely the combined conventional arms of America and it's allies in the region are sufficient to defend against iran, so why an ambiguous nuclear threat?

I seriously question Obama's 'liberal' credentials and the Nobel Peace Prize which was given to him.

When dealing with countries like Iran or North Korea, diplomacy only go as far as the willingness of their leaders. However, when a country has nuclear weapons, it gives pause to countries like Iran on how direct their confrontation would be. That is why you are seeing them use the Israeli card, the Palestinian card, and the anti American card to attempt to prove their point. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, it is pointed at Israel. If North Korea has nuclear weapons, it is pointed at Japan. If either of these countries are attacked, our defense agreements will be to ensure our allies are protected and thus use of nuclear weapons will be authorized. As such, a world war will ensue similar to WWI consumed the world.

Nuclear non proliferation, and the treaty, dealt with the spread of nuclear materials for military purposes. It was never intended to ban nuclear weapons or their use. That is a different treaty.

[cauddyVab]

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Iran to take US to UN over 'threat'

Wow, It's almost as if Iran is knowingly in violation of the NNPT. Otherwise, why would they be concerned?

It's interesting to witness the shock at maintaining existing policy. As far as Iran's concerned, the nuclear option was never off the table. This treaty only takes the first-strike option off the table (rhetorically) for those who are in compliance with NNPT. The only change in policy that's happened is for the countries that are well behaved.

In the end, nothing has really changed in terms of launch policy. It's more of a gesture of good will towards those who are seen to deserve it. It's like putting a political "gold star" on the fridge to designate good standing in the international community. Iran is reacting like a jealous kid whose siblings have a gold star while they do not......

[ZZipZZipe]

uh...why tell them anything? What are they, or anyone, going to do that's any worse if we just lie?

Surprise, surprise.

Obama is manuvering. He knows the Iranians have no bomb or capability of getting one, but at the same time he realises that the only thing the Republicans are more blueballed about than screwing the poor and the old by canceling healthcare is having another war to profit off of, so he's going to hold out the promise of such until after November and then pull the rug out from under them. I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't informed the top Iranians of this plan and is getting them to act all aggressive to make it look more credible

At least I hope that's the case, it would show he's finally realiziing just how vicious these Republican Congressmen bastards are and that he's got to be a junkyard dog himself to beat them.

[bunkalapa]

uh...why tell them anything? What are they, or anyone, going to do that's any worse if we just lie?

Surprise, surprise.

Obama is manuvering. He knows the Iranians have no bomb or capability of getting one, but at the same time he realises that the only thing the Republicans are more blueballed about than screwing the poor and the old by canceling healthcare is having another war to profit off of, so he's going to hold out the promise of such until after November and then pull the rug out from under them. I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't informed the top Iranians of this plan and is getting them to act all aggressive to make it look more credible

At least I hope that's the case, it would show he's finally realiziing just how vicious these Republican Congressmen bastards are and that he's got to be a junkyard dog himself to beat them.

"No capability of getting one", eh?

At times you come off as being delusional.

This is one of those times.

[ibupronec]

funny part is obama is telling countries they can use a chemical attack in the middle of manhattan and we will not nuke em.

[Soypopetype]

uh...why tell them anything? What are they, or anyone, going to do that's any worse if we just lie?

Surprise, surprise.

Obama is manuvering. He knows the Iranians have no bomb or capability of getting one, but at the same time he realises that the only thing the Republicans are more blueballed about than screwing the poor and the old by canceling healthcare is having another war to profit off of, so he's going to hold out the promise of such until after November and then pull the rug out from under them. I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't informed the top Iranians of this plan and is getting them to act all aggressive to make it look more credible

At least I hope that's the case, it would show he's finally realiziing just how vicious these Republican Congressmen bastards are and that he's got to be a junkyard dog himself to beat them.

You do realize they almost had one before?

[loginereQQ]

admittedly, they do have the capability of making one, they manufacture their own advanced centrifuges, manufacturing these types of centrifuges requires more technical capability than manufacturing the bomb itself, so if they are not making bombs it's because of iaea monitoring and/or the Iranian governments decision not to construct bombs, not because they lack capability.

[voodoosdv]

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Iran to take US to UN over 'threat'

The question is, why isn't the US nuclear policy simply "we will not use a nuclear weapon first" instaed of this non-sense.

what kind of savagery is threatening to use a nuclear weapon first against a country that "might" have one or might be working on one, especially after a million Iraqis have died because "maybe" Saddam had 'chemical weapons'.

Surely the combined conventional arms of America and it's allies in the region are sufficient to defend against iran, so why an ambiguous nuclear threat?

And most important that no one on this site or the media raise:


We have been told for decades since the COLD WAR that the US has missile silo's that are armed and able to shoot down any missiles launched against the US.

So how in the hell are you in fear of iran using a nuke against you?

We all know the TRUTH is the US govt doesnt want missiles or nukes used in the MIDDLE EAST region because the nucleur fallout would deny them access to the MIDDLE EAST.......OIL......that doesnt BELONG to them!

That is the only reason why the US doesnt want ANYONE in the Middle East outside of ISREAL to have nukes!

[BritneySpearsFun@@@]

if the US is serious about non proliferation they would simply state "we won't use a nuclear weapon first", why does the US spend 600billion or whatever on defense , station large numbers of troops in the gulf region with airbases, all at taxpayer expense, and always purchase the most high-tech weaponry then? I can't think of any scenario in which a nuclear first strike would be necessary.
During the cold war there was some ambiguity because the Soviet Army was so strong that the pentagon expected them to roll over NATO forces in the initial stage of a conventional war, NATO had so little confidence that they could stop a Soviet invasion that they publicly stated that they would use tactical nuclear weapons to stem the tide until they could regroup, I honestly don't think they meant it but I think they felt it was necessary to deter the massive Soviet bear. But to direct this statement at N.Korea or Iran, two countries that the US is desperately trying to convince not to go in that direction-- and two countries that have conventional arms that can be defended against conventionally- makes no sense.. I can only conclude that the US is not serious about non-proliferation and instead the just use the wmd issue as an excuse to try to ruin those countries with sanctions..and that this threat is actually for the purpose of encouraging them to obtain nuclear weapons..

In 2008 the US spent over $50 billion on nukes. They're also the only country that has ever used them in aggression, yet it's Iran and North Korea we're supposed to be worried about?? I personally hold more concern over Israel and Pakistan's nukes.

Nuclear Security Spending: Assessing Costs, Examining Priorities - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
The United States spent over $52 billion on nuclear weapons and related programs in fiscal year 2008, but only 10 percent of that went toward preventing a nuclear attack through slowing and reversing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology.

[snislarne]

Who told us that? It's not true, the US does not have such a system, the missiles in the silos are ballistic missiles, not ABMs; there is no missile defense system in place; The US has been negotiating with eastern european countries to put a radar station there that would be part of a future ABM system, but especially since the financial crisis work in this area is slowing if not stalled and the Russians are against it.
the US is testing anti-ballistic missles but the success has been spotty, even when the ABM knows exactly where and when the missile is coming from and when the dummy missile is dropped from a cargo plane (an easier to hit target) and even if an ABM system is put in place there is not guaranteeing success, it wouldn't be 'guaranteed' to work but it would provide some level of protection at a very high cost.

One other thing, this ABM system would not work against a cruise (or other type) of missile launched from a strategic submarine-this is the most difficult type of interception because you never know where one of these subs are going to pop-up. This would have to be done by navy ships searching for subs, again if you don't find it, a single sub can launch dozens of warheads.

Other problems with it, the attacking country can design missiles that avoid the ABMs, they could use anti-satellite missiles to attack the satellites that guide and detect the incoming ICBMs. etc.

IMO ABM systems should be abandoned because they encourage other countries to procure more missiles, at greater cost to their societies, and don't deliver reliable protection.

BTW Obama has pretty much cancelled the entire maned space program, a few more shuttle flights and it's over..so serious are current budgetary constraints.

And most important that no one on this site or the media raise:
We have been told for decades since the COLD WAR that the US has missile silo's that are armed and able to shoot down any missiles launched against the US.

[Ikrleprl]

Who told us that? It's not true, the US does not have such a system, the missiles in the silos are ballistic missiles, not ABMs; there is no missile defense system in place; The US has been negotiating with eastern european countries to put a radar station there that would be part of a future ABM system, but especially since the financial crisis work in this area is slowing if not stalled and the Russians are against it.
the US is testing anti-ballistic missles but the success has been spotty, even when the ABM knows exactly where and when the missile is coming from and when the dummy missile is dropped from a cargo plane (an easier to hit target) and even if an ABM system is put in place there is not guaranteeing success, it wouldn't be 'guaranteed' to work but it would provide some level of protection at a very high cost.

One other thing, this ABM system would not work against a cruise (or other type) of missile launched from a strategic submarine-this is the most difficult type of interception because you never know where one of these subs are going to pop-up. This would have to be done by navy ships searching for subs, again if you don't find it, a single sub can launch dozens of warheads.

Other problems with it, the attacking country can design missiles that avoid the ABMs, they could use anti-satellite missiles to attack the satellites that guide and detect the incoming ICBMs. etc.

IMO ABM systems should be abandoned because they encourage other countries to procure more missiles, at greater cost to their societies, and don't deliver reliable protection.

BTW Obama has pretty much cancelled the entire maned space program, a few more shuttle flights and it's over..so serious are current budgetary constraints.

Um, Obama increased NASA's budget.