How on earth can Sen. Obama be criticized for saying he will never use nuclear weapons. Very few countries even HAVE nuclear weapons, and most that do - except the US - have a no-first-strike policy.
Shouldn't we be asking Sen. Clinton when she WOULD use nuclear weapons? To me, suggesting you would use nuclear weapons is a form of terrorism. Imagine if Iran had said such a thing - what would Hillary have said then?!
2007-08-02 14:04:05 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Clinton said she would not place ANY restrictions on her using weapons. INCLUDING first strike. WHY????
2007-08-02 14:08:50 · update #1
Yo it's me - yo that's terrorism.
2007-08-02 14:10:47 · update #2
LeAnne, what if the President of the United States wants to use his nuclear weapons to rule the world?
2007-08-02 14:11:59 · update #3
Because if you aren't willing to use them, you have taken away the threat. Sometime the fear of something is just as effective as the weapon itself (it worked with the US/USSR policy of MAD). I'm glad my personal safety is not dependent on your judgment.
Even Carter and Clinton would not say they would not strike first. If someone does something so awful to us that we don't want them to do it again, the threat of a first strike with nukes is a credible deterrent.
2007-08-02 14:09:16 · answer #1 · answered by Yo it's Me 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
To say that you would NEVER use Nuclear weapons only sounds like a big fat LIE to me. How does he honestly know what he would do if he were elected president!! You can't just go around saying you won't do something when you don't know what kinda position you may be put in one day. You can say you are against the idea and may only use them in the most dramatic situation, but to rule it out completely isn't the best Idea.
2007-08-02 21:19:22 · answer #2 · answered by Wyco 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not sensible or realistic for the free world in this day and age, this facetious message would embolden our enemies even more that have been in the planning stages for over 20 years to destroy our allies and then assault our homeland and one day destroy us.
Iran does not have a nuke 'yet' but for about 20 years has been in the planning stages to build nukes and been building up their military for the largest mid east war in history, they are now bold enough to make public statements by threatening to "wipe Israel off the map" how? nukes, that's how.
Iran and other enemies world wide should realize and understand that if we or our allies are targeted and assaulted that the U.S. governments immediate response will be that the perpetrator will be dealt with by complete annihilation. That's the reality of the world today, like it or not.
2007-08-02 21:50:48 · answer #3 · answered by anthony p 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What you didn't hear Obama say was he also reserves the right to change his mind. I really think this is a set up to position Hillary to look strong and more conservative than most people would believe so the disenchanted Republicans (many millions and counting) would vote for her.
2007-08-02 21:12:47 · answer #4 · answered by wooper 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
US · Russia · UK · France
China · India · Pakistan
Israel · North Korea
South Africa
All have nuclear weapons. And Iran is almost there. Hope this answers your question.
2007-08-02 21:11:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
it's OK if you have a defense system that could handle a launched attack against us. I don't think we do at this time, so retaliation could be the only answer. you can't take that off the table without emboldening your enemies. the threat has to be there for others to be responsible with their nuclear weapons.
2007-08-02 21:14:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nuclear weapons are one hell of a good deterrent should some nasty azz dictator decide his birth right includes ruling the world.
2007-08-02 21:09:39 · answer #7 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I DONT SEE WHY OBAMA SHOULD HAVE BEEN CRITIZED; ITS THE RATIONAL CHOICE NOT TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, IF ONE COUNTRY IS GOING TO USE THEM, OTHER COUNTRIES WILL ASSUME THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THEM, WHICH IN TURN LEADS TO THE SLIPPERY SLOPE, NO ONE SHOULD USE THEM! IF IRAN HAD SAID SUCH A THING, OUR TROOPS WOULD BE THERE BY NOW AS WELL AS OUR F-16's; IRAN WOULD BE THE NEXT IRAQ, ON THE OTHER HAND I DONT REALLY THINK SO; THEY ARE SUCH A NATIONALISTIC COUNTRY UNLIKE IRAQ DIVIDED BY SUNNI AND SHIITE, THEY WOULD HAVE A GREAT CHANCE OF WINNING A WAR AGAINST THE USA
2007-08-02 21:11:14 · answer #8 · answered by Sasha 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Saying we will not first strike is one thing. To say never means you are too big a wuzz to use them even if attacked. Sorry, we don't need a jerk like that in the White House.
2007-08-02 21:07:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
I believe that obama said this but could i have a link or something?
If they hit us with a nuke 1st how could he say that he would NEVER do the same??? I'd be scared with him as president...
2007-08-02 21:10:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋