Presidential Candidates Condone the use of Nuclear Weapons

Ardentfrost · 12-05-2007, 09:27 PM

YouTube Video

The vid is obviously pieced to prove a point, but it's certainly relevant considering the recent info about Iran having given up their nuclear ambitions 4 years ago.

Of all the candidates on the stage, Ron Paul was the only one who promoted NOT going around beating our chests at a ghost enemy.

I simply do NOT understand the point of view that our version of diplomacy should include the use of nukes being "on the table."

JaJae · 12-05-2007, 10:09 PM

I agree with everyone in that video per se. I agree that we shouldn't be threatening other countries with the nuclear bomb, but obviously it is part of our arsenal and we shouldn't discuss whether we will or won't use them against any nation.

If we take the nuclear option off the table at every chance, what's the point to having them in the first place? If someone believes we should be a superpower without nuclear weapons, that's a fine argument, but I'd disagree.

So yes, I agree with Paul we shouldn't go in and threaten force at every chance we get. But we shouldn't run around telling everyone our military and weapons are just for show. Nobody is saying they're looking forward to or wants to bomb Iran. They're just saying they wouldn't say they would never do it given they can't foresee the future and whether or not they'll feel it was warranted. That's a good enough answer for me.

Ardentfrost · 12-05-2007, 10:26 PM

you don't have to talk about them for people to know they're there.

Look, this is REALLY pertinent because it pretty much fucking happened: Iran doesn't really want to disclose how close they are to weapons or nuke power for a number of reasons. We want to make sure they're not making weapons. They say "that's really none of your business." We say "Ok then, I guess we have to start exploring the possibility of attacking you, possibly with our own nuclear weapons."

How the FUCK is that diplomatic and/or making the situation ANY better? It's not. The nukes are there if we need them, which, if we're being REAL diplomatic (not just saying we're being diplomatic then using our military prowess to strike fear in the hearts of third world dictators), we won't need to.

So, yes, making a blanket statement of "let's leave the nuclear weapons on the table" is retarded in terms of diplomacy.

JaJae · 12-06-2007, 02:34 AM

It's not retarded at all. The smartest thing Hillary Clinton ever said this campaign was in response to Obama's response to Iran. She basically said as a candidate you need to leave all options on the table.

You're dealing with a rogue nation which is unfriendly to Israel and west who may be actively seeking nuclear weapons for reasons other than self defense. They need to know we haven't already backed down and will use any means necessary to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear bomb.

The Ron Paul approach essentially is to do nothing and wait until the middle east is involved in a nuclear Cold War. I don't see that as a viable solution. When asked by a reporter or a questioner if they'd use nuclear weapons on Iran an acceptable answer is "All options are on the table." I don't think they should run around saying they want to nuke the bitches. But saying "all options" is fine by me. It conveys the message that we haven't ruled anything out and we will use whatever means we feel are necessary to prevent Iran from created a nuclear bomb. Do I think a president should use a nuclear bomb on Iran? Of course not, but I don't support them running around informing them of all the things they would and wouldn't do. Some diplomacy issues need to be left behind closed doors. Iran should be worried about any possible consequence from further developing their weapons programs.

nbiggershaft · 12-06-2007, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I simply do NOT understand the point of view that our version of diplomacy should include the use of nukes being "on the table."

They were asked the question of whether they would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

The only acceptable answers to this are, "I wouldn't remove any option from the table" or possibly, "I wouldn't condone nuclear first strike".

With the latter being a shaky statement I don't think any president has said.
I'm sure several people on the stage may be hawkish enough to threaten nukes but they gave the right answer, anything else is irresponsible.

Donkey® · 12-06-2007, 07:12 AM

We have nukes for a reason. Everyone knows this. We don't need to shove them down people's throats because all that does is make others want them as well.

garbagemanlb · 12-06-2007, 11:05 AM

Anyone else find it ironic threatening the use of nukes to prevent another country from getting nukes?

AVengeance · 12-06-2007, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

Anyone else find it ironic threatening the use of nukes to prevent another country from getting nukes?

I have a knife, and if you ever try to make a knife, I'll stab you with mine.

Now, what do you want to do more: comply with my demand, or get a bigger knife? Or more knives? Or something even more powerful than a knife?

It's like they WANT Iran to build a nuke, so they can start WW-III.

Ardentfrost · 12-06-2007, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

I have a knife, and if you ever try to make a knife, I'll stab you with mine.

Now, what do you want to do more: comply with my demand, or get a bigger knife? Or more knives? Or something even more powerful than a knife?

It's like they WANT Iran to build a nuke, so they can start WW-III.

Decent metaphor.

RMNIXON · 12-06-2007, 06:59 PM

Hillary will always play it safe and never rule out "anything."

You can count on that!