[Big Mac]

U.S. Keeps First-Strike Nuclear Strategy - WSJ.com

So, based on what's being written about the Administration new nuclear warfare policy, rogue countries can contemplate using chemical or biological weapons without any fear of American nuclear retaliation against them. Also, by saying that nuclear weapons are around solely for their deterrent effect, that implicitly means that the use of nuclear weapons is off the table completely, does it not? I mean, if one says a weapon is around purely for its value as a deterrent, doesn't that mean that if deterrence fails the weapon will still not be employed in combat because it was "deterrence only"? Isn't that basically equivalent to calling something for decoration only? Plus, I could have sworn that I saw Obama declare that first strike nuclear capabilities were being eliminated completely, but that's not what the WSJ reports.

On the one hand, I think President Obama's goal to see a world without nuclear weapons is laudable, from an idealistic political perspective. Nuclear weaponry is a terrible drag on humanity. But from the realist perspective, unilateral nuclear disarmament (which I see this policy as being tantamount to) seems rather foolhardy. I don't want to see nuclear weapons used ever again if the world can help it, but I also want rogue regimes to be at least somewhat fearful of the remote possibility that America could pull out the nuclear card in an extreme situation. I think that this policy is based on noble aspirations but may actually make the world less safe, since evil dictators now can rest a bit more confidently with the knowledge that America's nuclear capabilities are all for show.

[AKcrab]

No matter what we "say". We will always be ready and willing to unleash a nuke.

[Big Mac]

You're sure about that, with this post-American Commander-In-Chief?

[OreoCookie]

I think you're letting your worst nightmares get the best of you instead of reading what is actually said. (Somehow I get the impression that you do that a lot, but that's a different topic.)

The change in policy signals to nations which do not attack the US using nuclear weapons do not need to fear nuclear retaliation. That sounds like a big change, but in practice, it's not: there is no nation that currently threatens the US directly (with nuclear or conventional weapons). Russia has no intentions to do so, neither have Canada, Mexico or some of the Caribbean states. The wars America is currently involved in are asymmetric: American troops vs. insurgents, Taliban, etc., i. e. they're not facing conventional armies. What good would a nuclear attack do? And even if terrorists may get a hold of a dirty or even nuclear bomb, who are you going to bomb in return?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think you're letting your worst nightmares get the best of you instead of reading what is actually said. (Somehow I get the impression that you do that a lot, but that's a different topic.)

Vielen dank for the gratuitous remark, my friend.

The change in policy signals to nations which do not attack the US using nuclear weapons do not need to fear nuclear retaliation. That sounds like a big change, but in practice, it's not: there is no nation that currently threatens the US directly (with nuclear or conventional weapons). Russia has no intentions to do so, neither have Canada, Mexico or some of the Caribbean states.

You're absolutely sure about that? If there's no threat at all, why does Russia still feel threatened by our deployment of ABM technology?

The wars America is currently involved in are asymmetric: American troops vs. insurgents, Taliban, etc., i. e. they're not facing conventional armies. What good would a nuclear attack do? And even if terrorists may get a hold of a dirty or even nuclear bomb, who are you going to bomb in return?

In the case of Islamic terrorists? The destruction of Mecca and Medina. If the policy of the United States were clear that any confirmed nuclear, chemical or biological attack from an Islamic state, state surrogate or terrorist group would be followed by the destruction of Islam's holy cities, the world would be a much safer place. That's certainly not a politically correct response, but it's the truth.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Vielen dank for the gratuitous remark, my friend.

I'm saying this, not because I want to be snarky or condescending, but because I find it worrysome. And I think you could help make the world be a better place in a more efficient manner if you see reality for what it is rather than pretending it is the sum of your worst fears.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You're absolutely sure about that? If there's no threat at all, why does Russia still feel threatened by our deployment of ABM technology?

This change in policy is not directed against Russia.
The US has always negotiated with Russia directly over the two countries' nuclear arsenals.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

In the case of Islamic terrorists? The destruction of Mecca and Medina. If the policy of the United States were clear that any confirmed nuclear, chemical or biological attack from an Islamic state, state surrogate or terrorist group would be followed by the destruction of Islam's holy cities, the world would be a much safer place. That's certainly not a politically correct response, but it's the truth.

Killing innocent people that had nothing to do with a hypothetical attack will make the world a safer place? And precisely how would that make us safer from the wrath of 1+ billion muslims who then had a legitimate reason to fight back? What do you do if the terrorists are Christians, for instance? Or Jewish? Or Atheists?
Perhaps we should proceed with the destruction of the holy sites of all major religions (e. g. the Vatican, the Wailing Wall, Ise Jingu and a few others) while we're at it? Sorry, but that's sick. And not even helpful to your cause.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Perhaps we should proceed with the destruction of the holy sites of all major religions (e. g. the Vatican, the Wailing Wall, Ise Jingu and a few others)

Does that include Dawkins' house and the LHC?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I'm saying this, not because I want to be snarky or condescending, but because I find it worrysome. And I think you could help make the world be a better place in a more efficient manner if you see reality for what it is rather than pretending it is the sum of your worst fears.

It comes off as condescending/snarky because what you wrote reads as an ad hominem. I don't think you've backed up the subjective assertion you made about me, so I call it gratuitous.

This change in policy is not directed against Russia.
The US has always negotiated with Russia directly over the two countries' nuclear arsenals.

That still doesn't explain why Russia is still so paranoid of ABM deployment, and it doesn't speak to your assertion that America faces no direct threats. If Russia weren't still a direct threat it wouldn't have nuclear weapons aimed at America, and it wouldn't protest missile shields over Eastern Europe that pose no demonstrable threat to it.

Killing innocent people that had nothing to do with a hypothetical attack will make the world a safer place? And precisely how would that make us safer from the wrath of 1+ billion muslims who then had a legitimate reason to fight back? What do you do if the terrorists are Christians, for instance? Or Jewish? Or Atheists? Perhaps we should proceed with the destruction of the holy sites of all major religions (e. g. the Vatican, the Wailing Wall, Ise Jingu and a few others) while we're at it? Sorry, but that's sick. And not even helpful to your cause.

Yeah, okay Oreo. I suppose that in your world it's Christians, Jews and Hindus waging "holy war" against non-believers, trying to light their underpants on fire aboard flights, declaring to wipe countries they don't like off the map, are responsible for the vast majority of world conflicts (based in large part on a desire to foist their religious law on the rest of the world), killing their own coreligionists in terrorist attacks (i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan) and are the leaders of the most wanted terrorist groups in the world. I suppose Muslims weren't responsible for 9/11 - must have been some other religion because Islam is peace, right? Osama's religion is what now according to you? Does he come from a long line of Swedes? Seriously, I'm not the one who needs a reality check.

You suffer from the same political correctness malformed political outlook that is doing its part to destroy liberal democracy in western Europe. My view is not politically correct. It's not the best solution. But I'll tell you now that if the Muslim world feared for the security of Mecca and Medina in response to large scale Islamic terrorist attacks, such attacks would drop dramatically over night. And here's another politically incorrect thing I'll tell you: Radical Islam is the scourge of the 21st Century akin to the scourge of Nazi Germany of the 20th Century. Neither should be whitewashed, apologized for or diminished, and the free world will need the same kind of fortitude it exhibited in WWII if it wishes to be victorious again this time around.

[BadKosh]

The Libs want to make the US a sissy country....like the president.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Does that include Dawkins' house and the LHC?

No need in case of the LHC, that'll soon create a black hole and destroy itself.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It comes off as condescending/snarky because what you wrote reads as an ad hominem. I don't think you've backed up the subjective assertion you made about me, so I call it gratuitous.

I can back it up, but I don't want to sidetrack the discussion here.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That still doesn't explain why Russia is still so paranoid of ABM deployment, and it doesn't speak to your assertion that America faces no direct threats. If Russia weren't still a direct threat it wouldn't have nuclear weapons aimed at America, and it wouldn't protest missile shields over Eastern Europe that pose no demonstrable threat to it.

What do you think Russia's current intentions are, do you think there is a serious risk of a (nuclear or conventional) war between the US (+ Nato) and Russia? And you don't think that the open questions -- especially those with regards to the nuclear arsenal of the two countries -- aren't covered in negotiations between the two countries that have started during the Cold War and continued all the way up to now?
I'm not claiming the problems are solved, but rather that they're a separate issue.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yeah, okay Oreo. I suppose that in your world it's Christians, Jews and Hindus waging "holy war" against non-believers, trying to light their underpants on fire aboard flights, declaring to wipe countries they don't like off the map, are responsible for the vast majority of world conflicts (based in large part on a desire to foist their religious law on the rest of the world), killing their own coreligionists in terrorist attacks (i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan) and are the leaders of the most wanted terrorist groups in the world. ...

I'm not saying that today, people of other religious faiths are as involved in terrorist activity as muslims. You also correctly assert that they have no problems killing each other and innocents. However, I don't get what can be solved by stooping to their level and threatening all muslims in the world with a (nuclear?) terrorist attack on their holiest of sites. You object to killing innocent people, but propose killing innocents as a solution. You can't advocate mass murder to avoid another mass murder.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

My view is not politically correct. It's not the best solution. But I'll tell you now that if the Muslim world feared for the security of Mecca and Medina in response to large scale Islamic terrorist attacks, such attacks would drop dramatically over night.

There is a predominantly muslim country with nuclear weapons, what makes you think Pakistan will sit idly by and watch the destruction? It's quite obvious what would happen if you threaten the muslim world with an attack on their holiest of sites. And seeing that there are 1.5+ billion muslims in the world, we wouldn't have solved anything, quite the contrary.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And here's another politically incorrect thing I'll tell you: Radical Islam is the scourge of the 21st Century akin to the scourge of Nazi Germany of the 20th Century. Neither should be whitewashed, apologized for or diminished.

It's ironic that you have come to believe the rhetoric coming from Iran :hmmm:
Radical Islam is not the coherent, well-organized movement with one single country you make it out to be. Nor are all of the conflicts religious in nature.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I'll tell you: Radical Islam is the scourge of the 21st Century akin to the scourge of Nazi Germany of the 20th Century.

But you know what? The irony is that nowadays I can hear the decedents of victims of Nazi oppression call for methods that are based on exactly the same lunacies that were spread by the national socialists: prejudice, aggression, exclusion, marginalization, ignorance, hatred. It's sickening to see this coming from the one group of people who should know better than any other where this can lead to.

Personally, I find it an outrageous insult to the victims of Nazi ideology. And if there's one thing radical ideologies like national socialism or Stalinism have taught me it's that such simplistic and radical recipes as well as the hecklers that call for them are to be firmly and unconditionally rejected. Tolerance does not extend to the intolerant. If you call for the mass murder of innocent people you have lost all credibility in any type of democratic society.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

My view is not politically correct.

I couldn't care less if it's PC. I object to it because it's unbelievably naive and enormously destructive.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The Libs want to make the US a sissy country....like the president.

But of course! Because the President's main interest is weakening his own country. An interest shared by the majority of the American people who voted for him. All of a sudden it's so clear. Why didn't we realize that before?



Keep it up. I'll fetch some more popcorn.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Simon 

But you know what? The irony is that nowadays I can hear the decedents of victims of Nazi oppression call for methods that are based on exactly the same lunacies that were spread by the national socialists: prejudice, aggression, exclusion, marginalization, ignorance, hatred. It's sickening to see this coming from the one group of people who should know better than any other where this can lead to.

Personally, I find it an outrageous insult to the victims of Nazi ideology. And if there's one thing radical ideologies like national socialism or Stalinism have taught me it's that such simplistic and radical recipes as well as the hecklers that call for them are to be firmly and unconditionally rejected. Tolerance does not extend to the intolerant.

Thanks for the preaching. Do you think you have a monopoly on the truth? Your relatives didn't perish in the Holocaust, did they? Neither did OreoCookie's. Yet you guys presume to preach to me what lessons I should draw from it in response to the latest existential threat to my people, posed by radical Islam. Perhaps it's scary that I'm not the typical weakling (nebbish) Jewish liberal stereotype you guys are accustomed to and comfortable with, the stereotypical leftist Jew who is in lock step with your political ideology. Jews like me do not intend to go silently, submissively like sheep to the slaughter, as so many of our ancestors did. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

But by the way, to equate my views toward radical Islam with Nazism is disgustingly insulting. I don't hate Islam or all Muslims. I make a distinction between radical Islam and non-radical Islam. I don't wish to see Muslims as a group eradicated, although those who aid and abet terrorism should be destroyed. All I offered was a clear way for the world to considerably reduce serious Muslim attacks, and you really can't argue with the logic of it. It's too discomforting for the likes of your eyes - so be it. Your left-wing peace and love mindset can't grasp it what I have to say, so you have to falsely equate my speech with Nazism. Good job.

I couldn't care less if it's PC. I object to it because it's unbelievably naive and enormously destructive.

And yet you're railing in a serious fashion about my theoretical proposal. If it were truly that ridiculous, wouldn't you laugh it off and not give it a second thought?

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Your relatives didn't perish in the Holocaust, did they?

Actually two of them did. In Sachsenhausen-Oranienburg. Thank you. So don't even start to think you can lecture me on how I judge Nazi ideology.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

And yet you're railing in a serious fashion about my theoretical proposal. If it were truly that ridiculous, wouldn't you laugh it off and not give it a second thought?

You're absolutely right. Hence, I'll stop right here and "laugh it off".

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Actually two of them did. In Sachsenhausen-Oranienburg. Thank you. So don't even start to think you can lecture me on how I judge Nazi ideology.

You presume to judge me, so I only returned the favor. I honestly don't think you've learned the lessons of the Holocaust, and you think the same of me, so we'll have to differ.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Thanks for the preaching. Do you think you have a monopoly on the truth? Your relatives didn't perish in the Holocaust, did they? Neither did OreoCookie's. Yet you guys presume to preach to me what lessons I should draw from it in response to the latest existential threat to my people, posed by radical Islam.

I don't preach, I simply present a different opinion. Your opinion carries the same weight as mine, regardless of whether relatives of you or me have been killed in Concentration Camps. Besides, it's awfully presumptuous of you to assume that if some of mine (or someone else's) relatives had fallen victim to the genocide orchestrated by the Nazis, I'd be of the same opinion than you.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Perhaps it's scary that I'm not the typical weakling (nebbish) Jewish liberal stereotype you guys are accustomed to and comfortable with.

`Jews, we're comfortable with'?! That's very insulting, you imply we continue antisemitism from the Third Reich. Not just to me, but also to many (if not all) of my Jewish friends and colleagues would be offended as well.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But by the way, to equate my views toward radical Islam with Nazism is disgustingly insulting. I don't hate Islam or all Muslims. I make a distinction between radical Islam and non-radical Islam.

You introduced the comparison yourself in this discussion. If you're offended by me telling your proposal to kill innocent people in order to achieve political gains is mass murder and terrorism, then you have it wrong: you should be offended by your own opinion, not by others pointing out what your opinion is.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

All I offered was a clear way for the world to considerably reduce serious Muslim attacks, and you really can't argue with the logic of it.

I have argued the logic of it, you have chosen not to reply.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by AKcrab 

No matter what we "say". We will always be ready and willing to unleash a nuke.

While I'm inclined to agree with you, secret nukes are good for retaliation, but aren't very useful as deterrents.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

In the case of Islamic terrorists? The destruction of Mecca and Medina. If the policy of the United States were clear that any confirmed nuclear, chemical or biological attack from an Islamic state, state surrogate or terrorist group would be followed by the destruction of Islam's holy cities, the world would be a much safer place. That's certainly not a politically correct response, but it's the truth.

Do you honestly think that destroying Mecca and Medina would *stop* Islamic terrorists? I think it would result in an escalation of Islamic terrorism.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't preach, I simply present a different opinion. Your opinion carries the same weight as mine, regardless of whether relatives of you or me have been killed in Concentration Camps. Besides, it's awfully presumptuous of you to assume that if some of mine (or someone else's) relatives had fallen victim to the genocide orchestrated by the Nazis, I'd be of the same opinion than you.

I never said that everyone who suffered under Nazi Germany would necessarily agree with me. I do honestly think that it's obscene for you as a German to preach to me as a Jew about the Holocaust or genocide, but that's just my opinion. (Don't take it too personally, though - I think you're a nice, fair-minded person - but when it comes to issues like these I don't think you're in any position to judge me.)

`Jews, we're comfortable with'?! That's very insulting, you imply we continue antisemitism from the Third Reich. Not just to me, but also to many (if not all) of my Jewish friends and colleagues would be offended as well.

I wasn't talking specifically about Third Reich mindsets. The Nazis weren't comfortable with Jews at all. But what I was referring to is that it is a fact that the political elite of the world is far more comfortable with the left-wing, defeatist, nebbish Jew, including the type who knowing his fate went silently to the gas chambers instead of doing anything and everything to resist (not that I'm necessarily finding fault with Holocaust victims but rather describing a type of mindset), than it is with Jews of my or like mindset - tough Jews who don't believe in submitting, who would rather be alive and despised by an evil world than dead and eulogized by that same evil world. It's part and parcel with the world sitting by and doing nothing in the face of the Iranian nuclear threat - the world doesn't care if six million Jews - in a country of obstinate Jews in Israel who don't wish to surrender - go up in a nuclear inferno, just as it did not care during the Holocaust.

I have argued the logic of it, you have chosen not to reply.

I'll respond to that reply later.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I never said that everyone who suffered under Nazi Germany would necessarily agree with me. I do honestly think that it's obscene for you as a German to preach to me as a Jew about the Holocaust or genocide, but that's just my opinion. (Don't take it too personally, though - I think you're a nice, fair-minded person - but when it comes to issues like these I don't think you're in any position to judge me.)

… and of course, you're entitled to your opinion, just as I am.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I wasn't talking specifically about Third Reich mindsets. The Nazis weren't comfortable with Jews at all.

That's the understatement of the year.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But what I was referring to is that it is a fact that the political elite of the world is far more comfortable with the left-wing, defeatist, nebbish Jew, including the type who went silently to the gas chambers instead of doing anything and everything to resist, than it is with Jews of my or like mindset - tough Jews who don't believe in submitting, who would rather be alive and despised by an evil world than dead and eulogized by that same evil world.

Being tough and pretending to live in a world where you're tough are two different things. You're not tough if you are quick to lash out at others, you come across as weak and insecure. Acting without any realistic long-term strategy and based on fleeting emotions is not wise.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's part and parcel with the world sitting by and doing nothing in the face of the Iranian nuclear threat - the world doesn't care if six million Jews - in a country of obstinate Jews in Israel who don't wish to surrender - go up in a nuclear inferno, just as it did not care during the Holocaust.

Now you're doing it again: you liken the situation to a the Holocaust. This thread started out as a discussion on Obama's slight change in policies (i. e. American politics) and now we're discussing an entirely different subject focussed on Israel. The two have little to do with each other -- unless you view America as an extension of Israel (in that order!). The adaption of America's policies on the use and usefulness of its nuclear arsenal just takes the changed political situation into account: the conflicts America and its allies are involved in are asymmetrical and far away from American soil. In these types of conflicts, nuclear weapons are not part of military strategy. The countries that currently seek to acquire nuclear capabilities (most prominently Iran and North Korea) are explicitly excluded from this change in strategy.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

"post-American" lulz

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by AKcrab 

No matter what we "say". We will always be ready and willing to unleash a nuke.

Bingo. I have no doubt that any President would be willing to break the treaty if it was necessary.

Also, post-american?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Now you're doing it again: you liken the situation to a the Holocaust. This thread started out as a discussion on Obama's slight change in policies (i. e. American politics) and now we're discussing an entirely different subject focussed on Israel. The two have little to do with each other -- unless you view America as an extension of Israel (in that order!). The adaption of America's policies on the use and usefulness of its nuclear arsenal just takes the changed political situation into account: the conflicts America and its allies are involved in are asymmetrical and far away from American soil. In these types of conflicts, nuclear weapons are not part of military strategy. The countries that currently seek to acquire nuclear capabilities (most prominently Iran and North Korea) are explicitly excluded from this change in strategy.

You're jumping to conclusions. The discussion got side-tracked to a discussion of Nazism, the Holocaust, Jews, Israel, and Iran, topics which are clearly linked. But those topics have nothing directly to do with the original topic of the thread, and I never claimed they did. Yet you somehow assume that I link the two and use that false linkage to try to disparage me.

[- snip -]

[SpaceMonkey]

The clear effect of this policy is to explicitly reserve a retaliatory nuclear strike for situations in which the United States is under an existential attack (including from biological or chemical weapons). Frankly, I think that most people (including "rogue" states) have assumed that this is the unstated U.S. policy since the mid-1950s.

The main purpose of the U.S. nuclear deterrent, to ensure that a nuclear strike against the United States would be met with an overwhelming, devastating nuclear response, is still on the table.

Note also that:

But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.

...

For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.

White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.

(Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms - NYTimes.com)

[Big Mac]

Thank you for steering us back on course, SpaceMonkey. I wonder what constitutes a devastating strike.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Thank you for steering us back on course, SpaceMonkey. I wonder what constitutes a devastating strike.

That would be difficult to nail down, given the range of biological events that might occur. This is apparently what the text of the Nuclear Posture Review says (the review will be released later today):

"Given the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid pace of bio-technology development, the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapons threat and US capacities to counter that threat."

The only problem I have with what I have read about the review so far is the pledge for the United States to not develop new nuclear warheads. Many people think that, as the United States makes further cuts in nuclear arsenal, ensuring a reliable deterrent up to and until we actually get to zero will require a new warhead design.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Thank you for steering us back on course, SpaceMonkey. I wonder what constitutes a devastating strike.

"Thank you for undoing what I did, SpaceMonkey."

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Perhaps not, but it seems like your open hatred for me could have some National Socialist roots.

Yes. It couldn't be that he's a logical, even-keeled person and the things that you're posting are bat**** insane.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Yes. It couldn't be that he's a logical, even-keeled person and the things that you're posting are bat**** insane.

You think his expletive-suppressed response to me was logical and even-keeled?

Thanks for trying to derail the thread again, though.

[sek929]

I think it was right on the money, you tend to get whipped up into these fearful frenzies every couple of days. All of a sudden you are the end-all be-all Jew here, and how DARE a guy from Germany talk to you about the Holocaust.

High horse indeed.

[Chongo]

More relevant news: Russia reserves opt-out of arms treaty with US - Yahoo! News

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press Writer Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 23 mins ago

MOSCOW – The new U.S.-Russian arms control treaty is a much better deal for Russia than its predecessor, but Moscow reserves the right to withdraw from it if a planned U.S. missile defense system grows into a threat, Russia's foreign minister said Tuesday.

Sergey Lavrov said Russia will issue a statement outlining the terms for such a withdrawal after President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sign the treaty Thursday in Prague. The new accord replaces the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START I, which expired in December.

Lavrov has said before that Russia could withdraw from the treaty. But his comments at a briefing Tuesday were his most specific yet on how and why a withdrawal could occur.

"Russia will have the right to opt out of the treaty if ... the U.S. strategic missile defense begins to significantly affect the efficiency of Russian strategic nuclear forces," he said.

[OAW]

Any nation stupid enough to launch a chemical or biological attack against the US can expect an devastating military response. The fact that it would be "conventional" isn't going to belie the fact that the destruction will be overwhelming and pervasive. So I'm not going to lose any sleep over this.

Having said that ... I would have preferred that the policy be that the US would never use nuclear weapons in a first strike unless there was a demonstrably imminent threat of a WMD attack against the US. And that the US would use a nuclear weapons as a retaliatory strike in response to a WMD attack only.

OAW

[SpaceMonkey]

The review is now available online:

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

[besson3c]

I think we should call post-America "besson3c land"

[besson3c]

Big Mac: do you realize that the rhetoric you use makes people far less interested in taking the things you say all that seriously? Maybe you don't realize how crazy the rhetoric has gotten? For starters, check this out:

200 Examples of anti-Obama merchandise during health care debate, 2008-2010

[subego]

The nuking the Saudis thing should have been a poll.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So, based on what's being written about the Administration new nuclear warfare policy, rogue countries can contemplate using chemical or biological weapons without any fear of American nuclear retaliation against them.

No. The bill precludes rogue countries from being protected against nuclear strike. Countries that ignore NATO resolutions regarding chemical, biological, and nuclear warfare are fair game.

[Eug]

Nothing to add to the discussion in this thread, except to say that Black Rain is an excellent film. See it.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Nothing to add to the discussion in this thread, except to say that Black Rain is an excellent film. See it.

Is that the sequel to Chocolate Rain or Purple Rain?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

200 Examples of anti-Obama merchandise during health care debate, 2008-2010

Right. So it's not like you can say that you weren't warned.

[Big Mac]

They're concentrating on hating me right now, Doof. I'll call you in when it's your turn.

[Doofy]

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Right. So it's not like you can say that you weren't warned.

Warnings are far less likely to be taken seriously when they are issued like the weird guy yelling at pigeons at the park.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

They're concentrating on hating me right now, Doof. I'll call you in when it's your turn.

Are hating, disagreeing, and mocking all interchangeable to you?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Warnings are far less likely to be taken seriously when they are issued like the weird guy yelling at pigeons at the park.

I served a restraining order, that shouldn't be a problem anymore.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I served a restraining order, that shouldn't be a problem anymore.

Yeah, those pigeons now have to stay 500 feet away or else.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are hating, disagreeing, and mocking all interchangeable to you?

Cursing at a person implies a certain level of hatred for said person.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Cursing at a person implies a certain level of hatred for said person.

Then direct this at the singular person that did that.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Cursing at a person implies a certain level of hatred for said person.

Odd, I usually curse because of something someone did, not who they are.