Nuclear Weapons Or Obama: Which Endanger Us More?
SEARCH BLOG: NUCLEAR
The New York Times reports:
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.Read that several times. So a massive attack on Washington, D.C. using nerve gas or biological weapons designed to kill thousands gets the 6-month troop build-up response? How about if we include New York City and Los Angeles? Okay, if Chicago gets hit, Obama will rethink his position.
[Read full story]
Look at this [click to enlarge]:
Kim Jong Il is working in his self-interests. He uses the mere threat of nuclear weapons attack as a deterrent against those who might try to get rid of him from the outside so that he can focus on making those he needs for retaining power satisfied with what he can give them. And with nuclear weapons he can give them more income [from U.S. payoffs] and security [through fear that he will use his nuclear weapons].
If someone as inconsequential as Kim Jong Il has figured it out, you have to ask: "Is President Obama actually working in our self-interest or simply living out some perception-impaired fantasy about the world?" What, indeed, is the incentive to fear the U.S. if our leaders say our weapons are merely for show?Do we want to use nuclear weapons? Definitely not. Do we place limits on our actions regardless of what some other party does? Yes, but stupidly so.
President Obama apparently feels the need, as Commander-In-Chief, of the world's approval rather than respect. His belief that we can simply talk those who oppose our self-interests into agreement worked really well in Iran. What makes him think that he can talk his way to restraining others of like mind with Iran?
From 
