hypothetical: President Obama and the nuke option

[hellokeith]

This is purely hypothetical, but alas I still implore you to search your heart and answer honestly.

Imagine Obama is President. This could be '08 or some time way down the road, doesn't actually matter.

Imagine an utterly terrible situation were the US firing nuclear missle(s) is an appropriate action/reaction, and that option is supported by at least half of the military, congress, and American people. I'm not going to even try to come up with a scenario, just use your imagination, it is better to not ponder specifics.

Would you support him, if he decided to do it? I'm not asking if you think you have the power to influence his decision, as he has already decided to do it. In fact it's more likely that you'll find out after the first (or only) nuke explosion. When you find out, do you support his decision?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

What is the relevance of the fact that Obama is President? As it happens I think I'd trust him more than any of the other candidates in this situation, but realistically I wouldn't support using nukes unless our country was attacked with a force that justified it (not necessarily nuclear force, but something VERY heavy), and I WOULD support it under the right circumstances, regardless of who was President.

 

[HombrePequeno]

I guess it really comes down to who is doing the nuking. If it was a country with a fairly limited amount of nukes, I'd say retaliation is perfectly fine on military targets.

If it was say, Russia, who has thousands of nukes and the means to deliver them, I'd say no. There'd be no winning that one and I'd go for the option that kills fewer people.

Why you included Obama in this is beyond me. My answer is the same regardless of who is president.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: DonVito
What is the relevance of the fact that Obama is President? As it happens I think I'd trust him more than any of the other candidates in this situation, but realistically I wouldn't support using nukes unless our country was attacked with a force that justified it (not necessarily nuclear force, but something VERY heavy), and I WOULD support it under the right circumstances, regardless of who was President.

I think he is trolling for liberals to answer up that hey would support him just because Obama is a Dem. I don't think he is going to get the answer he is looking for. I believe most of us, even those of us who support military action, would not be in support of using nukes except in the most dire of circumstances.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: DonVito
What is the relevance of the fact that Obama is President?

My thoughts too. What difference does it make who is president if that situation were to arise?

As for the question... I don't care about public opinion so much as I do about it being the right decision. But there would have to be one hell of a solid reason to justify it.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I guess it really comes down to who is doing the nuking. If it was a country with a fairly limited amount of nukes, I'd say retaliation is perfectly fine on military targets.

If it was say, Russia, who has thousands of nukes and the means to deliver them, I'd say no. There'd be no winning that one and I'd go for the option that kills fewer people.

Why you included Obama in this is beyond me. My answer is the same regardless of who is president.

So if it was Russia...and they launched one, you wouldn't launch one back? On the premise they won't launch more?

Why would they launch the first one? What would prevent them from launching more?

MAD only works if NO ONE uses them.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: DonVito
What is the relevance of the fact that Obama is President?

My thoughts too. What difference does it make who is president if that situation were to arise?

LOL. Seriously. What does this have to do with Obama?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Imagine an utterly terrible situation were the US firing nuclear missle(s) is an appropriate action/reaction, and that option is supported by at least half of the military, congress, and American people. ...

I'm still waiting to hear how Obama or Clinton or Guiliani or MCain or Paul being president matters at all for my supporting or not supporting the justified use of nuclear weapons.

Is this some racist thing, or partisan trolling, or what?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: DonVito
What is the relevance of the fact that Obama is President? As it happens I think I'd trust him more than any of the other candidates in this situation, but realistically I wouldn't support using nukes unless our country was attacked with a force that justified it (not necessarily nuclear force, but something VERY heavy), and I WOULD support it under the right circumstances, regardless of who was President.

exactly.........

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Imagine an utterly terrible situation were the US firing nuclear missle(s) is an appropriate action/reaction, and that option is supported by at least half of the military, congress, and American people. ...

I'm still waiting to hear how Obama or Clinton or Guiliani or MCain or Paul being president matters at all for my supporting or not supporting the justified use of nuclear weapons.

Is this some racist thing, or partisan trolling, or what?

dave you never cease to amaze me when you elucidate on a subject!!

 

[slash196]

No one is nuking anybody, except possibly terrorists nuking someone. Only terrorists are willing to accept the mass slaughter of innocents; no country with nuclear capabilities is prepared to deal with A. the moral consequences, and/or B. the political repercussions of such an act.

Nuclear weapons are a joke. They're a gun we can't use and we're making ourselves less safe by keeping them around.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: slash196
No one is nuking anybody, except possibly terrorists nuking someone. Only terrorists are willing to accept the mass slaughter of innocents; no country with nuclear capabilities is prepared to deal with A. the moral consequences, and/or B. the political repercussions of such an act.

Nuclear weapons are a joke. They're a gun we can't use and we're making ourselves less safe by keeping them around.

A nuclear strike will eventually happen again. Just when?

 

[imported_Shivetya]

So, this is only a concern if a black man is President?

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
So, this is only a concern if a black man is President?

I guess it's more likely to go off if you hold it sideways or something.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
This is purely hypothetical, but alas I still implore you to search your heart and answer honestly.

Imagine Obama is President. This could be '08 or some time way down the road, doesn't actually matter.

Imagine an utterly terrible situation were the US firing nuclear missle(s) is an appropriate action/reaction, and that option is supported by at least half of the military, congress, and American people. I'm not going to even try to come up with a scenario, just use your imagination, it is better to not ponder specifics.

Would you support him, if he decided to do it? I'm not asking if you think you have the power to influence his decision, as he has already decided to do it. In fact it's more likely that you'll find out after the first (or only) nuke explosion. When you find out, do you support his decision?

If half of the Congress and Military believe that using nuclear weapons to be a necessity then my support for the action would have nothing to do with who may or may not be the President.

 

[Termagant]

Guys, obviously you missed the point of this thread. Obama grew up in a Madrassa, obviously he's a terrist sleeper agent.

 

[hellokeith]

I think it's funny (in a sad way) how most of you guys cannot answer a fairly straightforward question without accusations of trolling, racism, and stereotyping.

I chose Obama because he's the least well known candidate who has a chance of becoming President, therefore eliminating the potential for personal bias. I highly doubt the poll results would be anywhere near the same if I had chosen Romney or McCain..

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
I think it's funny (in a sad way) how most of you guys cannot answer a fairly straightforward question without accusations of trolling, racism, and stereotyping.

I chose Obama because he's the least well known candidate who has a chance of becoming President, therefore eliminating the potential for personal bias. I highly doubt the poll results would be anywhere near the same if I had chosen Romney or McCain..

I believe you're misguided. I would absolutely trust McCain to use good judgment in that situation. I don't know much about Romney, but I can't imagine my answer would be different for him either.

 

[thraashman]

This question is on the same level of saying "If Zod came to Earth, would you want Superman to fight back?" Because it's a "hypothetical" that will never happen. If the US is ever hit from a nuke, it won't be from a nation. Whatever nation fires nukes first in any conflict will automatically be the aggressor nation that everyone is against. So the US won't launch nukes unless it was nuked first, the only way the US will ever be hit by a nuke is a terrorist attack not another nation. The fact that George W Jackass seems to think his missile defense shield has a purpose just shows even more how stupid he is. I feel pretty sure that the US is not stupid enough to use nukes in any future conflicts.

Also I hate when people talk about using nukes against "military targets". What kind of bullcrap is that. Nukes take out cities! Unless this magical military target was 50 miles away from the closest city, you're much more likely to kill more civilians than you ever could kill military personel.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Why you included Obama in this is beyond me. My answer is the same regardless of who is president.

Unless it's Hillary.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
So, this is only a concern if a black man is President?

or Martin Sheen.

 

[LegendKiller]

The least well known candidate? Perhaps to illiterates, partisan hacks, racists, and head-in-the-sand people.

He has multiple books out there describing his positions quite well. There's millions of articles, interviews, discussions, opinions. He hasn't wavered in his positions to a large extent and he doesn't drift with the winds to a large extent. I'd say that he's probably the most consistent and clear candidate in the field. Yet, somehow, some well-known righty just suddenly picks him as *the* unknown?

Obviously you're one, or more, of the people I mentioned in the 2nd sentence.

 

[palehorse]

so far Obama has not given me any reason NOT to trust him with his finger on the trigger... check back with me in another year.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
I chose Obama because he's the least well known candidate who has a chance of becoming President, therefore eliminating the potential for personal bias..

If eliminating bias against a person was your intention, why did you list a specific person at all?

"Imagine we have a new President. This could be '08 or some time way down the road, doesn't actually matter. ... "

Since this is P&N and most thread starters have an axe to grind, as soon as you listed a specific person without any explanation of why you chose them we were left to guess at your agenda.

 

[alchemize]

Let's go with Ron Paul as the hypothetical instead?