NEW YORK TIMES
WASHINGTON — President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons. 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.
Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.
Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.
It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. 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.
Mr. Obama’s new strategy is bound to be controversial, both among conservatives who have warned against diluting the United States’ most potent deterrent and among liberals who were hoping for a blanket statement that the country would never be the first to use nuclear weapons. Mr. Obama argued for a slower course, saying, “We are going to want to make sure that we can continue to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons,” and, he added, to “make sure that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances.”
In the year since Mr. Obama gave a speech in Prague declaring that he would shift the policy of the United States toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, his staff has been meeting — and arguing — over how to turn that commitment into a workable policy, without undermining the credibility of the country’s nuclear deterrent.
He ended up with a document that differed considerably from the one President George W. Bush published in early 2002, just three months after the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Bush, too, argued for a post-cold-war rethinking of nuclear deterrence, reducing American reliance on those weapons. But Mr. Bush’s document also reserved the right to use nuclear weapons “to deter a wide range of threats,” including banned chemical and biological weapons and large-scale conventional attacks. Mr. Obama’s strategy abandons that option — except if the attack is by a nuclear state, or a nonsignatory or violator of the nonproliferation treaty.
The document to be released Tuesday after months of study led by the Defense Department will declare that “the fundamental role” of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attacks on the United States, allies or partners, a narrower presumption than the past. But Mr. Obama rejected the formulation sought by arms control advocates to declare that the “sole role” of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack.
There are five declared nuclear states — the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. Three states with nuclear weapons have refused to sign — India, Pakistan and Israel — and North Korea renounced the treaty in 2003. Iran remains a signatory, but the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly found it in violation of its obligations, because it has hidden nuclear plants and refused to answer questions about evidence it was working on a warhead.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that we should keep useing nuclear weapons because even if a non-nuclear country attacks us with some sort of chemical warfare we should retaliate with a nuclear weapon so it would hopefully intimidate them so they would stop atacking.I agree with president bush'es document where we also reserved the right to use nuclear weapons “to deter a wide range of threats,”. it is a good idea but not for right now with countries like korea that have alot of nuclear bombs that could attack us at anytime.
ReplyDeleteSo, we're disarming ourselves then? Well, that's just great, really. That's practically asking for someone to come and attack us. That's saying "Look at us! We're vulnerable!" to every country that's ever wanted us gone. Even if we never used them, armed nuclear warheads make a pretty decent deterrent against just about anything that threatens us. By announcing this disarming of an essential line of defense, Obama has made it clear that if anyone wants to nuke us, that's alright. We'll just send some soldiers over there to die. Sure, we're fine using nuclear weapons against North Korea or Iran, but what about China or Russia? Technically, they're obeying international law, so it's all fine and dandy if they want to toss a couple of bombs at us, right? I say keep the nukes and get some one who knows what he's doing to make the important decisions.
ReplyDeleteAlmost every decision Obama has made actually goes way beyond his original intention, just like "better" healthcare becoming redistribution of wealth. I'm not sure why, but I have a sinking feeling this nuclear weapon choice is more than making the world a more peaceful place by lowering the incentives for other countries to use nuclear weapons (huh?) and giving less value to the weapons by making them obsolete. Maybe I'm going too far in depth into his plan-maybe he actually does believe lowering our defenses will decrease the possiblity of a future war.
ReplyDeleteIf our president is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, he's living in a alternate reality. Here, on Earth, there are humans who will scheme and spread their terror across the world, no matter what kind of peace we try to promote. Treaties can be made, hands can be shaken, and polite conversations can be had, but that doesn't lower somebody's need to want to destroy. I realize that Obama believes nuclear weapons are a symbol of destruction, and they definitely are, but so are things like guns which protect from those who want to use weapons for destruction. I'm all for peace, but just a different way of preventing violence. Violence is stopped by using violence (if needed) to keep more violence from happening (bear with me). Talking on its own does not work. While we need peace, peace cannot exist without violence and violence cannot exist without peace. Wilson believed there was a way to end all wars, but the fact of the matter is, our world was created on those two things I mentioned: violence and peace. As much as we hate the former, unfortunately, we have to have it.
No were not disarming ourselves... where in this does it say were disarming ourselves? This says that if we are attacked by "rogue states" we would not use nuclear war against them... Are you that much of an Obama hater that you think he will let someone attack us? Just dumb... In this article President Obama states,"I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure." The President of the United States is trying to make it clear that nuclear weapons have no place in this World.. This is doing nothing but setting boundaries for when we can use our nuclear weapons... Maybe we are reading two different columns but i don't think so..... This has to do with containing and abolishing nuclear weapons in the future and make the world safer for generations to come.... And i do believe that we have someone who knows what he's doing...Or else he wouldn't be our President
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the term "president" doesn't automatically make you an intelligent life form, it's just a word for our country's leader. However, there are presidents who have been intelligent, like George Washington. But really, Obama's decision doesn't have anything to do with a level of intelligence, it's just a matter of opinion, like my own. Second, disarmament is exactly what we are doing. Maybe you have a different definition of disarmament, but according to most dictionaries, disarmament is the reduction or abolition of a nation's military forces and/or armaments (including nuclear weapons). If that is wrong in any way, please let me know. Yes, we still have nuclear arms in defense against countries that could be considered aggresive, that is mostly agreed upon as necessary. But we are putting down our arms against any other countries as well. Y'know, just because a particular country isn't shouting, "WAR!" at the top of their lungs, doesn't mean they won't try to go to war with us when they find us vulnerable, which is exactly what we are. Usually that's when countries come out of nowhere and try to provoke an unexpected war. Countries go for the weak when they are ripe for the picking, just like a robber steals from a passerby when they notice they don't have anything to defend themselves with.
ReplyDeleteIf disagreeing with Obama makes me an "Obama hater", than yes, I guess I am an "Obama hater."
I think that the U.S. shouldn't be getting rid of the nuclear weapons. There are many countries that hate the U.S. and would like to see the U.S. gone. By taking away the nuclear weapons the U.S. isn't as big of a threat to them. The U.S. should keep some nuclear bombs but doesn't need to have enough to blow up the whole world. Just enough to use on a country if we were ever attacked. If we used a nuclear bomb on a country it could help end the war a lot quicker so less U.S. people would get killed.
ReplyDeleteWhy is eveybody talking about disarming ourselves? It doesn't say it anywhere in the article. I think it is a good thing that President Obama wants to limit the use of atoms bombs, even if that means to get rid of some. But we should not get rid of all the nuclear weapons we have. We should not let ourselves look volunarble towards other nations.
ReplyDeleteI think this decision was more then necessary and over due. The Cold War ended over tweny years ago and the relationship between old enemies got a lot better. the attention went from great nuclear powers like Russica and China to the terrorists organizations and instabile countries which are in contact with nuclear material. I think it is good that the US tries to come down from the one nuclear super power in the world. There are several countries which are growing in this part. And it does not work with one great super nuclear power on the world
ReplyDeleteI think that it is a good thing that we are limiting our use of neuclear weapons. I agree with what Obama is doing. I think that it is a good thing that we are trying to make neuclear weapons obsolete. I think they cause way too much death and destruction. Our military is big enough that even if we get attacked by another nation that we have the power to get back at them. Neuclear weapons are just invitations for the other countries who have them to fire them on us. If we use them first then it is almost certain that we will get them coming right back at us. I think it would be better if neuclear weapons were just taken out of this world. They cause way too many problems for our government these days.
ReplyDeleteLAST COMMENT
ReplyDelete