NYT BREAKING NEWS: Obama Limits When U.S. Can Use Nuclear Weapons

[flpoljunkie]

8:11 PM ET No story or link yet.

[flpoljunkie]

1. Article up now.

April 5, 2010
Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

By DAVID E. SANGER and PETER BAKER

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, even in self defense.

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 adopted by 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.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html?hp

[cornermouse]

7. One might ask why Iran and North Korea

(small and relatively unimportant in the general scheme of things) should be threatened with nuclear annihilation when the people who would care have absolutely no power. But I guess that doesn't matter?

[Go2Peace]

12. You should change your title. It hasn't happened yet, though it sounds good

I keep seeing posts like this that make claims to things that are being considered or in the works, being posted as "done deals" on this site. Can we more accurately label them to reduce the confusion?

As for the discussed changes, if it actually happens as presented, may be one of the most important world security events in many moons.

[LeftyAndProud60]

2. I would bet he wont get 1 GOP senator's support on this. nt

[flpoljunkie]

5. It would be the first thing they support him on-- except Afghanistan.

[jenmito]

3. I was just going to post this breaking news-I saw it on Countdown. This is great news!

K&R.

[ClarkUSA]

4. Cue GOP outrage/warmonger hawks who'll bemoan these "preconditions" that "take cards off the table".

Excellent move, President Obama.

You are not only talking the talk, you are walking the walk.

[LeftyAndProud60]

6. What exactly is the purpose of him signing this, if the GOP are gonna go batshit and not ratify it?

Keith just said it wont allow development of new nukes. People on this site that complain Obama doesn't go far enough is about to get a wakeup call of why he doesn't go far with his ideas. There is no way republicans will support this. Especially not in an election yr.

[babylonsister]

8. What's the point of him doing anything? If he only did things rethugs

approved of, he might as well move to Hawaii permanently. They have not approved of one thing Obama or the Dems have presented; I expect the trend to continue.

[LeftyAndProud60]

9. But he actually needs them to make this worth anything. Just look at some of these comments

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html


There is no working w/ these people. It's depressing really. And even more depressing when u realize these loons can be back in power very soon.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. Don't you mean, move to KENYA permanently??

;-)

[LeftyAndProud60]

10. I also don't like how the times make it sound like only the US agreed to these conditions. Russia

did too right?

[woolldog]

13. A country that uses biological weapons against the United States

needs to know that a nuclear option is possible. Taking options off the table like this (even a nuclear option) weakens our national security. From the article:

"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."

Horrible idea.

[LeftyAndProud60]

15. you're liberal? nt

[woolldog]

16. Yes, I consider myself a liberal. n/t

[PolNewf]

14. This is rather smart

which means the public will never go for it. Let the fear mongering begin!

The exceptions mean more than the rules here.