The NY Times has published an article in tomorrow's paper that announces a change in when the United States would use nuclear weapons. Actually, it is more like when we wouldn't use them.
The article also has the actual text of the policy order, which I've included after the break.
As one might expect the entire right wing is absolutely apoplectic over this. The comments posted for the article are so over the top, they defy words.
More after the jump:
From the article:
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.
President Obama discussing on Monday his new nuclear strategy, which would limit the conditions for using such 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.
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.
Here is an excerpt from the actual Nuclear Posture Review"
On the Use of Nuclear Weapons:
"The United States will continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks. To that end, the United States is now prepared to strengthen its long-standing 'negative security assurance' by declaring that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 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 weapons 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.
"In making this strengthened assurance, 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.
"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."
On the Development of New Nuclear Weapons:
"The United States will not develop new nuclear warheads. Life Extension Programs will use only nuclear components based on previously tested designs, and will not support new military missions or provide for new military capabilities."
As one can see, the President has limited when we would use such weapons. Prior policy just left the whole thing in some ambiguous state.
Personally, I believe the new policy is good in that it limits the use of such weapons; but it is also rather meaningless because it can be changed back at a moment's notice.
While limiting the use of nuclear weapons, it still promises conventional military response when needed of a "devastating" nature.
Now on the reaction in the comments:
As my grandmothers would have said, "Oy Vay!"
I'll just post some of the highlights in my own words... there are now over 200 comments:
Many of the people are posting how:
- It's the end of the US
- He should be impeached
- It makes us look weak
- He is inviting attack
- He's a commie
- He's a Muslim
- He's clueless
- We need to build bomb shelters again.
Well, you get the idea. There are a number of comments that commend the new policy, but mostly shake their heads in disgust at the venom and ignorance of the right.
I added my own comment to the list:
I've just read through the first 25 comments. Wow, do some people need a lesson in government.
First, changing America's military strategy is not an impeachable offense. A legal change of policy is not a crime. Grow up and stop the impeachment stupidity.
Second, if any one believes that we actually need nuclear weapons to defend ourselves, or to destroy an enemy, you're clueless as to the conventional weaponry that exists in our arsenal.
Third, from what nation is a nuclear attack going to come? The same for a chemical or biological attack? Terrorists...maybe. If couple of terrorists based in Canada decide to release some chemical disaster in an American city- do you want to nuke Toronto? Maybe Edmonton? For that matter, what if it's from one of our own home grown lunatics?
Even Iran and North Korea will not do harm to us in such a manner because they know it will be the end of their regimes- and nuclear weapons won't be used.
Finally, a policy is nothing more than words on paper. If real threats arise, all the President needs to do is change the policy.
So stop the whining, the stupidity, and the ignorance.
I can't wait to hear what Rush, Glenn, et. al. will have to say about this. Oh wait, they probably wrote most the comments I just read.
If we're lucky all these assholes will be so upset, they'll all just curl up and remain in a harmless fetal position until they pass away.