Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
'No first use' nuclear Policy Proposal
Topic Started: Aug 13 2016, 06:23 PM (122 Views)
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]

'No First Use' Nuclear Policy Proposal Assailed by U.S. lCabinet Officials, Allies
Obama’s disarmament agenda hits significant roadblock on opposition from Kerry, Carter and Moniz
Aug. 12, 2016 wsj

(President Obama is considering a change to the nation’s defense policy — to only allow use of nuclear weapons in response to an enemy attack. What are the pros and cons to the ‘No First Use’ doctrine in question?)


Quote:
 
WASHINGTON—A proposal under consideration at the White House to reverse decades of U.S. nuclear policy by declaring a “No First Use” protocol for nuclear weapons has run into opposition from top cabinet officials and U.S. allies.

The opposition, from Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, as well as allies in Europe and Asia, leaves President Barack Obama with few ambitious options to enhance his nuclear disarmament agenda before leaving office, unless he wants to override the dissent.

The possibility of a “No First Use” declaration—which would see the U.S. explicitly rule out a first strike with a nuclear weapon in any conflict—met resistance at a National Security Council meeting in July, where the Obama administration reviewed possible nuclear disarmament initiatives it could roll out before the end of the president’s term.

During the discussions, Mr. Kerry cited concerns raised by U.S. allies that rely on the American nuclear triad for their security, according to people familiar with the talks. The U.K., France, Japan and South Korea have expressed reservations about a “No First Use” declaration, people familiar with their positions said. Germany has also raised concerns, one of the people said.

Mr. Carter raised objections to the “No First Use” declaration on the grounds that it risked provoking insecurity about the U.S. deterrent among allies, some of which then could pursue their own nuclear programs in response, according to the people familiar with the discussions. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and Russia’s actions in Europe have also complicated any change to the U.S. nuclear posture for the Pentagon.

Mr. Moniz, who weighs in on nuclear issues for the Department of Energy, also expressed opposition to a “No First Use” posture, according to a person familiar with the discussions.

Mr. Obama ultimately didn’t issue a decision on the “No First Use” proposal at the National Security Council meeting, but people familiar with the White House deliberations say opposition from the critical cabinet members and U.S. allies reduces the likelihood of the change. They say a decision by Mr. Obama to press ahead with the declaration appears unlikely in his remaining months, given the controversy it would stir in the midst of a presidential election, but it isn’t impossible.


Other possible initiatives the administration has discussed also have met opposition, including calls to roll back a planned modernization of U.S. nuclear forces and proposals to reduce the U.S.’s deployed nuclear weapons without a reciprocal pledge from Russia.

The Defense Department previously said it wouldn’t pursue any reductions in the number of deployed nuclear warheads without an agreement on reciprocal action from the Kremlin.

The result is that policy work the White House launched last year to develop nuclear disarmament initiatives for Mr. Obama’s final months in office may end up limited largely to actions at the United Nations, where Mr. Obama plans to make nuclear issues a focus of his final speech to the General Assembly next month. The speech comes on the 20th anniversary of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which bars nuclear explosions. The U.S. signed the treaty in 1996, but the Senate hasn’t ratified it..............



The bottom line is that adoption of a ‘No First Use’ policy now provides no obvious benefit but entails considerable additional risk such as degrading our ability to deter advanced conventional, chemical or biological attacks against us or our allies,” said Keith Payne, president of the National Institute for Public Policy. “It would also threaten to increase the incentives for nuclear proliferation.”

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I do not believe that the US should reserve the right to start a nuclear holocaust.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]

Apparently Obama's cabinet and our allies feel that there are exceptions to the "first use" of nuclear weapons. Perhaps it's just that they feel that for the U.S. to be the first and only ones to declare 'no first use' is not a wise thing to do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fulltimer
No Avatar
Member
[ * ]
There is no way any civilized country can justify first use of those. It has already happened of course and we have a graphic demonstration of the consequences on a much smaller scale than would be the case today . A good case can even be made for non retaliation from a survival of species framework .
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stoned
No Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Banandangees
Aug 13 2016, 06:23 PM
'No First Use' Nuclear Policy Proposal Assailed by U.S. lCabinet Officials, Allies
Obama’s disarmament agenda hits significant roadblock on opposition from Kerry, Carter and Moniz
Aug. 12, 2016 wsj

(President Obama is considering a change to the nation’s defense policy — to only allow use of nuclear weapons in response to an enemy attack. What are the pros and cons to the ‘No First Use’ doctrine in question?)


Quote:
 
WASHINGTON—A proposal under consideration at the White House to reverse decades of U.S. nuclear policy by declaring a “No First Use” protocol for nuclear weapons has run into opposition from top cabinet officials and U.S. allies.

The opposition, from Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, as well as allies in Europe and Asia, leaves President Barack Obama with few ambitious options to enhance his nuclear disarmament agenda before leaving office, unless he wants to override the dissent.

The possibility of a “No First Use” declaration—which would see the U.S. explicitly rule out a first strike with a nuclear weapon in any conflict—met resistance at a National Security Council meeting in July, where the Obama administration reviewed possible nuclear disarmament initiatives it could roll out before the end of the president’s term.

During the discussions, Mr. Kerry cited concerns raised by U.S. allies that rely on the American nuclear triad for their security, according to people familiar with the talks. The U.K., France, Japan and South Korea have expressed reservations about a “No First Use” declaration, people familiar with their positions said. Germany has also raised concerns, one of the people said.

Mr. Carter raised objections to the “No First Use” declaration on the grounds that it risked provoking insecurity about the U.S. deterrent among allies, some of which then could pursue their own nuclear programs in response, according to the people familiar with the discussions. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and Russia’s actions in Europe have also complicated any change to the U.S. nuclear posture for the Pentagon.

Mr. Moniz, who weighs in on nuclear issues for the Department of Energy, also expressed opposition to a “No First Use” posture, according to a person familiar with the discussions.

Mr. Obama ultimately didn’t issue a decision on the “No First Use” proposal at the National Security Council meeting, but people familiar with the White House deliberations say opposition from the critical cabinet members and U.S. allies reduces the likelihood of the change. They say a decision by Mr. Obama to press ahead with the declaration appears unlikely in his remaining months, given the controversy it would stir in the midst of a presidential election, but it isn’t impossible.


Other possible initiatives the administration has discussed also have met opposition, including calls to roll back a planned modernization of U.S. nuclear forces and proposals to reduce the U.S.’s deployed nuclear weapons without a reciprocal pledge from Russia.

The Defense Department previously said it wouldn’t pursue any reductions in the number of deployed nuclear warheads without an agreement on reciprocal action from the Kremlin.

The result is that policy work the White House launched last year to develop nuclear disarmament initiatives for Mr. Obama’s final months in office may end up limited largely to actions at the United Nations, where Mr. Obama plans to make nuclear issues a focus of his final speech to the General Assembly next month. The speech comes on the 20th anniversary of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which bars nuclear explosions. The U.S. signed the treaty in 1996, but the Senate hasn’t ratified it..............



The bottom line is that adoption of a ‘No First Use’ policy now provides no obvious benefit but entails considerable additional risk such as degrading our ability to deter advanced conventional, chemical or biological attacks against us or our allies,” said Keith Payne, president of the National Institute for Public Policy. “It would also threaten to increase the incentives for nuclear proliferation.”


Trump has no problem


"If we have them, why can't we use them?" Trump asked

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-226639

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fulltimer
No Avatar
Member
[ * ]
Well IMO Trump is an idiot. If the DNC had any balls they would deep six him and run someone fit to be President, but that window is closing fast. McMullen is the only reasonable alternative on the right, but I believe Clinton (yes crooked hillary) is going to be President. IMO that is a good thing, considering the alternative is a caricature of some sort of sociopathic Ronald McDonald. Hillary will be a single termer unless Trump manages to run again. One can hope the Republican party has learned its lesson and uses the next 4 years go purge itself of these radical fringe individuals who have changed the party of Lincoln into the party of fruitcakes. Of course if Cruz manages to get the nomination, clinton may last for 2.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I'm sure the DNC would love to run someone in Trump's place. They'd probably like to run Obama in his place. And it would also be great if they ran someone else in Hillary's place while they're at it.... that is, if they'd like to run someone with balls.
Edited by Banandangees, Aug 13 2016, 10:42 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Stoned
Aug 13 2016, 10:11 PM
Banandangees
Aug 13 2016, 06:23 PM
'No First Use' Nuclear Policy Proposal Assailed by U.S. lCabinet Officials, Allies
Obama’s disarmament agenda hits significant roadblock on opposition from Kerry, Carter and Moniz
Aug. 12, 2016 wsj

(President Obama is considering a change to the nation’s defense policy — to only allow use of nuclear weapons in response to an enemy attack. What are the pros and cons to the ‘No First Use’ doctrine in question?)


Quote:
 
WASHINGTON—A proposal under consideration at the White House to reverse decades of U.S. nuclear policy by declaring a “No First Use” protocol for nuclear weapons has run into opposition from top cabinet officials and U.S. allies.

The opposition, from Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, as well as allies in Europe and Asia, leaves President Barack Obama with few ambitious options to enhance his nuclear disarmament agenda before leaving office, unless he wants to override the dissent.

The possibility of a “No First Use” declaration—which would see the U.S. explicitly rule out a first strike with a nuclear weapon in any conflict—met resistance at a National Security Council meeting in July, where the Obama administration reviewed possible nuclear disarmament initiatives it could roll out before the end of the president’s term.

During the discussions, Mr. Kerry cited concerns raised by U.S. allies that rely on the American nuclear triad for their security, according to people familiar with the talks. The U.K., France, Japan and South Korea have expressed reservations about a “No First Use” declaration, people familiar with their positions said. Germany has also raised concerns, one of the people said.

Mr. Carter raised objections to the “No First Use” declaration on the grounds that it risked provoking insecurity about the U.S. deterrent among allies, some of which then could pursue their own nuclear programs in response, according to the people familiar with the discussions. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and Russia’s actions in Europe have also complicated any change to the U.S. nuclear posture for the Pentagon.

Mr. Moniz, who weighs in on nuclear issues for the Department of Energy, also expressed opposition to a “No First Use” posture, according to a person familiar with the discussions.

Mr. Obama ultimately didn’t issue a decision on the “No First Use” proposal at the National Security Council meeting, but people familiar with the White House deliberations say opposition from the critical cabinet members and U.S. allies reduces the likelihood of the change. They say a decision by Mr. Obama to press ahead with the declaration appears unlikely in his remaining months, given the controversy it would stir in the midst of a presidential election, but it isn’t impossible.


Other possible initiatives the administration has discussed also have met opposition, including calls to roll back a planned modernization of U.S. nuclear forces and proposals to reduce the U.S.’s deployed nuclear weapons without a reciprocal pledge from Russia.

The Defense Department previously said it wouldn’t pursue any reductions in the number of deployed nuclear warheads without an agreement on reciprocal action from the Kremlin.

The result is that policy work the White House launched last year to develop nuclear disarmament initiatives for Mr. Obama’s final months in office may end up limited largely to actions at the United Nations, where Mr. Obama plans to make nuclear issues a focus of his final speech to the General Assembly next month. The speech comes on the 20th anniversary of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which bars nuclear explosions. The U.S. signed the treaty in 1996, but the Senate hasn’t ratified it..............



The bottom line is that adoption of a ‘No First Use’ policy now provides no obvious benefit but entails considerable additional risk such as degrading our ability to deter advanced conventional, chemical or biological attacks against us or our allies,” said Keith Payne, president of the National Institute for Public Policy. “It would also threaten to increase the incentives for nuclear proliferation.”


Trump has no problem


"If we have them, why can't we use them?" Trump asked

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-226639

Doesn't that give us all a nice warm fuzzy feeling when we think he just might get his finger on the button?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thumper
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
We have nuke's bought and paid for, so use them if we have to regardless if first strike or not. Matter of fact a couple over NK right now would be a good start.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fulltimer
No Avatar
Member
[ * ]
Except China would retaliate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis