Sarah Palin and Our Nuclear Arsenal

Discussion in 'Politics' started by john mario, May 15, 2010.

  1. john mario
    Offline

    john mario Rookie

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Messages:
    4
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    CT
    Ratings:
    +1
    Sarah Palin still does not reflect her intellect in her statements. Her statements are so vague as to leave her open to attacks.

    For example: She criticized Obama's agreement with Russia to reduce our nuclear arsenal as posing a threat to our country and making us seem weak. We have a big enough nuclear arsenal to destroy the world many times over.

    Obama's actually stated that conventional weapons are adequate for an attack on any non-nuclear nation. He never stated that nuclear weapons would never be used. He stated that nuclear weapons should be a last resort.

    Sarah Palin is too narrow minded and obviously has never read about the consequences of the US dropping the atomic bomb on Japan. She obviously never read about men, women and children screaming in pain and horror while running down the streets with their skin peeling off their faces.

    In my view Sarah Palin talks like a maniac who wouldn't hesitate to put us in the middle of a nuclear world war. An when that war is over, we would still be worried about a terrorist attack!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Is this an example of criticizing someone without knowing your own position? If so I can understand why you are trying to defend Obama.

    Previous policy of the US regarding WMDs is that any country who attacks us with a WMD will be subject to retaliation up to and including our own use of WMDs. This meant that if a country decided to attack us using biological or chemical weapons we reserved the right to use our nukes on them. This policy was designed to discourage the use of WMDs against the US, and no one can point to anything to indicate it is a failure.

    Obama's new policy, as announced originally, would be that we would no longer use nuclear weapons against non nuclear signatories of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, as long as they were in compliance with the treaty. This policy is meant to encourage nations like Iran and North Korea to comply with the NNPT, of which they were signatories. Obama believes that this new policy would reassure these "outlier" nations that they do not need nuclear weapons, because we would no longer use nukes against them even if they attacked us with chemical or biological weapons.

    Palin then commented that this policy reversed the policy of previous administrations, and substantially weakened our position in the world. Like it or not, she is correct. It did reverse previous policy that has been in place since we developed nuclear weapons, and it does weaken our position by making us more predictable, if we implement it as outlined by Obama.

    Our position regarding the USSR was that any invasion of Europe would be met with nuclear weapons. however you might feel about that policy, the undeniable truth is that the USSR did not invade Europe. Nuclear weapons are a deterrent force, and we cannot count on our non nuclear forces to defend us against an attack by "any country" that does not use nuclear weapons. Would we have used nuclear weapons if the USSR had invaded Europe. No one knows, but now the world will know that there are times we will not use them.

    Amazingly enough we have had these weapons for the better part of a century, and we ahve only used them twice. The clear proof that we were willing to use them, and the threat of them, kept us safe all this time. And you rant and rave that someone who points this out only wants to put us into a nuclear war. Could it be remotely possible that she is actually capable of looking at facts and seeing that the fact that we have them, and are willing to use them, actually keeps us out of nuclear wars? No sane person wants a nuclear war, but there are insane people out there who might. keeping the option on the table might keep the people around that nut from allowing him to attack us.
     
  3. john mario
    Offline

    john mario Rookie

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Messages:
    4
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    CT
    Ratings:
    +1
    Thank for your informative response to my blog. It was 1000% better than Sarah Palin's speech on the issue. And I disagree with you.

    We must not make threats that will bring us closer to a nuclear war. Do you want every Islamic nation in the world acquiring nuclear material as a deterrent to our threatened attack. Declaring that we would use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear nation is a clandistine reckless act that will only result in numerous crisis like the one we face with Iran. Obama's aim is to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Not to promote nuclear war as the answer to terrorism.

    Why use nuclear weapons against a nation that doesn't have nuclear arms? That would be an over reaction which would trigger a world nuclear war. And the most tragic part of this stance is that after the world nuclear war and after countless millions of people have died, we still would fear a terrorist attack. The world nuclear war would not resolve the problem.

    I stick to my original comment. I heard Sarah Palin speak on the issue. She did not include all the information you included in your comment. She did not reflect her knowledge or her intelligence in her comment.

    I look forward to more debates with you!
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2010
  4. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,817
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,359
    OMg. another post on how Palin doesn't know what she is talking about. :lol:

    and now she is a maniac too.

    gawd liberals and their over dramatic rantings that they put down as so called intelligent writings.

    and lookie, they stuck this lame post in the Tea Party category.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2010
  5. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Do threats take us closer to war?

    Let us examine the case of two homeowners. One admits he has guns, and refuses to qualify if he will use them under certain conditions and not others. The other also admits he has no guns, and further states that he believes guns should be eliminated. As an example to his less enlightened neighbors he announces that he will keep his guns locked away, and will only use them if someone breaks into his house with a gun himself. He states this will make everyone safer because now criminals will know they do not need guns when they come after his property. Which house is more likely to get a visit from a criminal?

    Refusing to answer a question is not making a threat. We never really threatened people with nuclear weapons, we just refused to let anyone tell us we could not use them if we deemed it necessary. If threats of nuclear war caused war we would be living in a nuclear wasteland. Even India and Pakistan, both of which have nukes and as are belligerent as any two countries on this planet, have not used nukes. Though both have threatened to do so.

    Threats are not actions. We should not condemn someone for imaginary threats, nor should we praise someone for intent.
     
  6. john mario
    Offline

    john mario Rookie

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Messages:
    4
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    CT
    Ratings:
    +1
    Thank you for your comments. By the way, if we use conventional weapons and severely damage a nuclear power plant, we have effectively started a nuclear war. Other nations will not just sit and watch their people die from acute radiation desease.

    Personally I still think that all this posturing about use of nuclear weapons only encourages terrorist groups and other countries to seek out enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. Instead of fueling the fire, let's work to put it out. You don't put out a fire by pouring gasolene near it.
     
  7. john mario
    Offline

    john mario Rookie

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Messages:
    4
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    CT
    Ratings:
    +1
    Thank you for your comment. We have a difference of opinion on Sarah Palin. I think that anyone who hasn't read the details of the aftermath of the first atomic bomb dropped on Japan during world war two should look them up before taking sides on the threat of using nuclear weapons issue. I have read those details and I learned that John F Kennedy was correct when he said "Victory will be ashes in our mouths."

    If you have read the horrible story of the first atomic bomb, then you know very well what I am talking about. There is no such thing as a limited nuclear attack. And wild talk about the use of nuclear weapons only brings us closer to a global nuclear war.

    I applaud Obama for making a real effort to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists and for trying to bring about world peace.

     
  8. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Why don't you wait a few weeks. The Senate is going to consider the treaty that Obama negotiated with Russia soon, and then the actual details will come out. I disagree with some of the particulars that he agreed to in order to free us from nuclear weapons, like eliminating our strategic non-nuclear arsenal. See if you still support him after you actually know what he is doing, and the real affect it is going to have on our national security.

    If it was as easy to start a nuclear war as you think we would have already have had one. Israel bombed a nuclear reactor in 1981 outside Baghdad. Was there a nuclear war back then that I missed?
     

Share This Page