Obama recently changed the United States’ nuclear policy and also signed a weapons treaty with Russia.
The gist of the policy change is that the US will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers (with some exceptions). Interestingly, Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity claimed that under the new policy, the United States cannot respond with nuclear weapons to a massive biological weapon attack. However, this claim shows that these two men are either ignorant of the real policy or simply lying. This is because the policy makes an explicit statement that the United States retains the option of using nuclear weapons in such cases.
If Newt and Hannity are ignorant, then they were acting irresponsibly. After all, they have an obligation to determine the facts before making such claims. This is true of anyone, but as influential public figures (and being on a news program) they have an even greater obligation to get their facts right before making such claims. Naturally, people can miss facts even when acting in good conscience. However, finding out the facts about this policy is a rather easy matter and hence it is reasonable to expect these men to have taken the minuscule effort it would have taken to learn the truth.
If Newt and Hannity knew the truth, but simply lied in order to take shots at Obama and perhaps scare Americans, then they acted in an immoral manner. This, of course, assumes that lying is wrong. However, if one takes the view that lying for political gain is acceptable, then this would be just fine. However, this would mean that the Democrats would be entitled to operate by the same principle as would the “liberal” media.
On a related note, I also happened to catch a clip of Sarah Palin criticizing this policy. She used an analogy to kids fighting on a school yard and there being one kid who says he will not hit back if attacked. Once again, Obama is not saying that we will not hit back. To make a more appropriate analogy, it is like kids fighting on the schoolyard and the biggest, toughest kid says that he will not use his baseball bat on kids who don’t have them. But, if someone hurls a rock at him, he will use the bat. Or if some kids have boards they want to make into bats, he can use the bat on them.
While I am all in favor of hitting people back, this means that I would be a rather bad Christian. After all, Jesus says:
You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. ‘But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Palin and many Republicans like to claim that they are Christians, so it was interesting to hear her blatantly rejecting what Jesus said.
Naturally, it can be argued that the bible is rather inconsistent and that a Christian does not have to follow that “turn the other cheek” thing. After all, the bible is full of passages justifying and allowing killing. Of course, this same sort of “pick and chose” should be extended to others as well, on the pain of inconsistency. So, for example, folks who want to ignore what the bible allegedly says about same sex marriage should feel as free to ignore that as Palin and other Republicans feel free to ignore other parts of the bible.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Stewart Rips Fox News For Inaccurate Reporting On Nuclear Arms Treaty (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
- Obama Rebukes Palin’s Slam of Nuke Policy (cbsnews.com)
- Obama to Palin: What do you know about nukes anyway? Update: Video added (hotair.com)
- Palin, Bachmann and Hannity rip black hole in fabric of the universe (crooksandliars.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
Actually, it’s you Mike that is being disingenuous. You’re eagerness to assault Republicans is making you vulnerable to mistakes.
Under President Obama’s new policy, however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is “in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),” explained Gates, then “the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/09/nuclear_posturing_obama-style_105108.html
Krauthammer:
Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up-to-date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. (Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs and other conventional munitions.)
However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT noncompliant, we are free to blow the bastards to nuclear kingdom come.
This is quite insane. It’s like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections.
Just in case you think it’s a Krauthammer bias, this is what the New York Times reported:
“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.”
Actually, the policy makes an explicit exception for biological attacks. And, of course, the policy also allows the United States to change the policy at will. In short, the policy seems to be mostly a political statement rather than a real change to our approach to defense.
Bible should be capitalized
I think the Washington politicians of BOTH political parties are blindly leading us into an unwinnable World War III scenario ( see: http://theworldperceived.blogspot.com/2010/02/our-politicians-in-washington-are.html )
That having been said, it’s a gross misunderstanding of Christ’s teachings to think that his teachings on personal, individual ethics (i.e., “turn the other cheek”) applies across the board to communities and nations.
Not only that, but Christ himself used violence (or force) on at least one occasion, which is recorded in all four gospel accounts (see: http://theworldperceived.blogspot.com/2010/01/jesus-and-violence.html )
Why would collections of individuals be exempt from the requirements of individual morality?
This is quite insane. It’s like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections.
So, Krauthammer has upped his warmongering to using nuclear weapons on another country regardless if they have used them against us. And to relate hanging vs. community service based on vehicle emissions testing whether a country is up to par with the NPT is the text book definition of a straw man argument.
Esteev,
Did you look at the textbook definition of Straw Man argument?
A Straw Man is an argument in concerns to an issue that doesn’t exist.
Hyperbole perhaps. Straw Man? No.
And, as Krauthammer says, every president before this one has held the policy that America witholds the right to use nukes. Did Japan nuke us?
Nukes don’t hold a special moral status. They’re just the most powerful thing we have.
It could be argued that nuclear weapons do have a special moral status due to the radiation aspect. Morally, that does seem to make a difference. However, this could also be seen as a difference of scale (nuclear weapons kill more and longer than conventional weapons).
Nukes have no special moral place in that a chem or bio attack could possibly kill as many people. So why seperate them?
Chem and bio, while not radioactive, have what is called persistancy; they hang around for a long time depending on the type. Anthrax spores can survive decades.
Sure, I’ll put chemical and biological weapons in the same general family as nuclear weapons. Most folks who think about such matters do-after all, we talk about NBC weapons as distinct from conventional arms. What lumps them together is their potential scale of death, the persistence factor, the lack of discrimination, and the “horror” factor.
Telling our enemies we won’t use nukes if they chem/bio attack us seems really dumb to me. Even if that were policy, wouldn’t it be better to keep it to ourselves?
Robert Gates hated this. He argued to no avail.
Gates will be going soon. Watch.
Actually, the policy allows us to change the policy. So, if we get bio-bombed, we can nuke them back. The policy does not actually change the hardware or even really change how we would react anyway. After all, we did not nuke Iraq. Or Vietnam. Or Korea.
Magus vs. Mike 🙂
http://i.imgur.com/ONYAG.jpg
ROFL!
Simply awesome….
I always know what sort of tea I want. Beer. 🙂
What President Obama has done is the same thing that Republican idol Ronald Reagan proposed back in the 80’s. It is one thing to be hypocritical and another to be stupid. Or as Doc Mike likes to say, “however, it can be argued that” they go hand in hand.