Obama to limit use of nuclear weapons

[lynx]

From Times Online
April 6, 2010
Obama to limit use of nuclear weapons
(/John Lasky/USAF/Reuters)

President Obama will today announce that he is to dramatically narrow the conditions under which the United States will use nuclear weapons, even for self-defence.

In an interview with The New York Times ahead of the unveiling of his much anticipated revamped nuclear policy, Mr Obama said an exception would be made for "outliers like Iran and North Korea" that have violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But in a striking departure from the position taken by his predecessors, he said that the US would explicitly commit for the first time to not using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that adhere to the nuclear treaty, even if they attack with biological or chemical weapons.

There's much more here:
     http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7088561.ece

No one wants to see the US drawn into a nuclear war, but how can it possibly be a good thing to announce to our enemies that we are not willing to defend ourselves with every resource at our disposal? Does this announcement not make an attack on the US more likely, not less?

[slim2none]

Considering how many campaign promises and statements of position upon which Obama has twirled a 180, if not a complete 360 degree turnaround, it would seem that any nation, or person for that matter, that takes him 'at his word' does so at its peril. 

I note that Obama noticeably makes no mention of Israel as a nuclear armed nation that coyly skirts its possession of nuclear armaments and is NOT a signator nation to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and does not allow any inspection of its facilities -but- he does allow that Iran could be a target even tho it is yet to be proven how it has violated the NPT.     

[slim2none]

No one wants to see the US drawn into a nuclear war, but how can it possibly be a good thing to announce to our enemies that we are not willing to defend ourselves with every resource at our disposal? Does this announcement not make an attack on the US more likely, not less?

I don't think it can ever be a good idea for any nation to announce its intentions of how it will respond under attack, or more particularly that it would delay or forego ANY response, but  Obama is  'going for the gold' now in terms of buoying his international  popularity.  Playing to the masses with the big lie.  Actually, I'm not convinced that the POTUS  would even have that decision anymore, as the military is /has been calling the shots in this area and others for some time now  IMO. 


http://rt.com/Politics/2010-04-12/medvedev-interview-abc-obama.html

I believe that Russia, including Medvedev and especially Putin, see the potential benefit of this treaty but are well aware of Obama's penchant for doing an aboutface, and that it really isn't all up to Obama anyway.  That is my take after reading this interview with Medvedev by G. Stephanopolous.  Medvedev not only made it clear verbally, but wisely insisted that it be put in writing, that with some wheeling and dealing our nations could be made to achieve parity but...any substantial future change in 'parity' would make the treaty invalid.

He also makes some remarks about Iran...interesting interview overall.