Democrats... your opinion of Hillary Clinton's statement to Obama?

Question

I just read an article in the newspaper about Hillary Clinton's defense of using nuclear weapons against Bin Ladin. The article explained that Clinton did not approve of Obama's refusal to justify using nuclear weapons agianst Bin Ladin. Personally I agree with Obama that it would be a grave mistake in deploying nuclear weapons when we are supposedly trying to stop others from using them. I want to hear your thoughts on this issue...

P.S. I do award points to the most throught provoking answer, regardless of its political views

Univee, I was not commenting on the intelligence (or lack thereof) of using nuclear arms against an individual - I was simply asking for your opinion of an article.

I also would like to mention, Univee, that I am a Moderate with Democratic leanings. The intention of this question was not to flame Hillary, but to provoke an intellectual debate about the use of nuclear weapons in the modern age.

The reason I did not post the actual article URL is because it is a local paper, and that would give away where I live (I'm always careful about such things on the internet). The article itself is an editorial, so it is a secondary source to Hillary's actual words. If anyone could find the actual primary source in which she said her comment, that would be great.

Sagacious_Ness:
I am not sure what most of your response has to do with the question I've asked. The question I've asked is mainly about the use of nuclear weapons and what Hillary and Obama think of their use.
As for Hillary's real party - she would most likely be a moderate. I believe she is trying to take over where Clinton left off - the impossible task of uniting the two parties.

Thankyou Sagacious_Ness for the article URL

Answer 1

How can you use nuclear weapons against an individual? A nuke kills hundreds of thousands, including all civilians.

You know, you pro-nuke republicans are a fairly stupid lot.

edit: you know, if you want to ask my opinion about the contents of an article, then posting a link to the article will prevent any misunderstanding.

However, I stand by what I said. The world is neatly dividied into two groups on this topic. People who are genuinely stupid about the use of nukes, (and I thank whatever powers that be that most generals and military men are not in this group) and people who figure 'nuke ;em, that'll solve the problem.'

I get that I missed the nuance of your question, but then, how could I comment on 'an article in the newspaper'... which article, which newspaper?

However I stand by my remark.

edit 2:

fair enough. And you have my comments. The danger of the issue of nukes in the current age is that the public has become comatose about the realities of the situation. Since candidates are just a specialized division of the public, they are likely to be making really stupid errors of judgement.

There's a reason that knowledgeable people advanced the doomsday clock a couple of years ago.

Answer 2

OK... so let me get this straight, going back to the debates
-- Obama was in favor of talking, so he's 'inexperienced'
-- Hillary said she'd wait a year, so she's 'experienced

-- Obama gets blasted for saying that if we have reliable intelligence and the Pakistan government doesn't go after Al Quada, he would support sending troops in to do so.
-- Hilliary says it's bad to insult our allies.

-- Hillary calls for removal of Maliki, a democratically elected official of the Iraqi government.
-- Obama doesn't join that presumptuous bandwagon.

-- Hillary thinks nukes are OK against Bin Laden... but what if Bin Laden is in Pakistan? What about insulting our allies?
-- Obama says nukes would be a grave mistake, especially since we don't want others to use them.

PLEASE remind me again who is 'inexperienced'?? I'm not a party-line Dem or Rep, but I thought I'd figured them out... the Dems were the 'whore mongers' and the Reps were the 'war mongers'. So what is Hillary's real party? Have I been right all along thinking she was more of the 'status quo' and might as well be Republican?


Sorry, back to nukes then... I think she's very wrong! To me, she's no 'moderate' because even considering the use of nukes is far beyond the realm of moderation. Obama is absolutely right, we can't take a "do as I say, not as I do" stand towards the use of nukes, especially when more and more nations have the capability.

Answer 3

I think Obama has a point.

We shouldn't use nuclear weapons in any situation. The only exception would be if we were attacked with a nuclear weapon but I think we should deeply consider not to fight back with nukes even if attacked.

We have been restricting other countries from using and testing nuclear weapons. It would make us look like big hypocrites being one of the first ones to use them.

Plus we will open the way for other nations to use their nuclear weapons too.

Because I think that other countries will think "if the americans did it then why can't we"

So we shouldn't use them

Even if it is to catch Bin Ladin, we still shouldn't use them.

Answer 4

Her advisors nonetheless say she has a ten% risk of prevailing. Plus if she takes down the Democratic party in 2008, she will run in 2012 while she would be in a position to no longer be super previous like McCain! enable's no longer lose sight of what's critical now---Getting Hillary into the White living house, no longer putting people on the wonderful courtroom who will defend a woman's impressive to chosen what happens in her physique!

Answer 5

It is a mistake to use nuclear weapons, especially with terrorists who are cowards and hide amongst civilians. We have far more technologically advanced weapons that can pinpoint our targets, thereby reducing the amount of damage in surrounding areas. I don't mind using the "threat" of nuclear power to help persuade those who are hiding that piece of garbage to give him up... but it would take quite a bit to actually think of using them. Millions would have to be dying or in danger before something that profound would be needed. It's OK to carry the big stick... but you also need to be responsible for that stick.

univee.... how about getting an education... Hillary is a DEMOCRAT... and the only President to actually use Nukes... a DEMOCRAT.

Answer 6

What politicians say to get in office is not always what they say when they are in office. It is kind of like choosing a dish at a restaurant you have not been to. You pick the best and see if you like it. Honestly, Bush, fits in with this example. Who he was before he got to office and who he is now are quite different. It's not just him, this has been going on for quite some time. When all is said and done I don't think that either one will be in the White House. I don't think Americans think that they are ready for a woman in there. Sadly, it may just be Obama's name that doesn't get him elected. Nothing against him at all. So when all is said and done it matters not what they say out of office but what they do in office that matters most.

Answer 7

I think Hillary is referring to Tactical nukes or Bunker Busters, not ICBMs.
But I agree with Obama, weapons like that, should not be used except in the most dire circumstances, if at all, especially during a time, our government is trying to tell everyone else they are too irresponsible to have nuclear technology.

Answer 8

I think what Hillary means is a small nuke--but personally, even though I like her, I'm with Obama--it's just a bad idea. If we use nukes, who's to say someone else won't take our example and attack us right back with theirs? Isn't this what the fear of the cold war was all about? I think we would have had Osama by now if our efforts weren't concentrated in Iraq. He's the real enemy.

Answer 9

Ummm. Using nuclear weapons to kill one man or a few men, or a hundred men quite is literally over-kill. Obama is using common sense on this one. Hillary is pandoring to the conventional "wisdom" that the US should never rule out nukes. Conventional wisdom is wrong on this one.

Answer 10

we should never use nukes. it was a mistake creating them. they hurt innocent people, the land they hit, and generations born after the attack suffer consequences.

who could support that?