# Obama won't nuke those w/o nukes (except NK and Iran) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 6, 2010, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203 "2010-04-06T21:43:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203/21 "2010-04-07T13:24:20Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Biological and chemical weapons existed in 1970 when the treaty was drafted. If we felt their use should be included in the terms of the treaty we had the opportunity to raise the issue. We didn’t and we signed the treaty as it was written. The US also had a functional chemical weapons program in 1970, which could have been used for a proportional response and a deterrent. We signed the chemical weapons treaty in 1993, and have been disposing of our chemical stockpiles since then. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203/22 "2010-04-07T14:41:07Z")
The United States has refused to sign the Ottawa Treaty (aka the Mine Ban Treaty). We’ve argued there should be an exemption for the Korean DMZ. But there is no exemption so we haven’t signed it. If you don’t like the terms of a treaty, you try to negotiate different terms. If you can’t get the terms you want, you don’t sign it. But you don’t sign a treaty and then decide to ignore the terms in it. ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203/23 "2010-04-07T16:03:26Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The United States has refused to sign the Ottawa Treaty (aka the Mine Ban Treaty). We’ve argued there should be an exemption for the Korean DMZ. But there is no exemption so we haven’t signed it. > > If you don’t like the terms of a treaty, you try to negotiate different terms. If you can’t get the terms you want, you don’t sign it. But you don’t sign a treaty and then decide to ignore the terms in it. And technically, the Hague Conventions of 1899-1907 banned arming _aircraft_. It banned chemical weapons, too. Back to the NNPT, different terms concerning C/BWs weren’t _necessary_ at the time. Times have changed, the tactical and strategic setup of our country (and the world) has changed. And frankly, the following the pre-1991 interpretation of this treaty sounds like it would simply _protect_ any non-nuclear country who uses non-nuclear WMDs from retaliation. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203/24 "2010-04-07T16:09:08Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I think Obama’s being foolish. Does he really think that states will abide by the NPT? Of course not: they’ll quietly develop nuclear weapons if it suits them. So what? If they, do this stance says we can nuke them. Should we be in the business of nuking everyone who _might_ be working on a nuclear capability? > [@Ranchoth](#): > > All other issues aside, I simply can’t agree with vowing no nuclear retaliation against chemical or biological attacks by non-nuclear countries. I have to imagine that the thinking behind it is to keep countries with C/BW weapons already from thinking “well, we’re already a valid target already, 'might as well go nuclear anyway,” but I can’t help but thinking it’d end up more like “what, we’re already being attacked by the US [in whatever hypothetical future war], how much worse is the ‘massive conventional attack’ going to get? Might as well fire off the mustard gas. It’s a force multiplier, _and_ it might horrify the enemy’s population into demanding they cut and run.” Except chemical and biological weapons are really not very effective. You can cause much more death and destruction with conventional weapons. About the only real advantage is the fact that it doesn’t harm physical structures. Of course the more effective versions do leave a long lasting residue that is expensive to clean up. Most nations have abandoned chemical weapons because they don’t make tactical or strategic sense, not because of their horrors. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203/25 "2010-04-07T16:20:12Z")
> [@](#): > > And frankly, the following the pre-1991 interpretation of this treaty sounds like it would simply protect any non-nuclear country who uses non-nuclear WMDs from retaliation. Only if you assume we don’t have any non-nuclear options of our own. As it turns out, we managed to reach out and touch Saddam Hussein without using any nuclear weapons. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203/26 "2010-04-07T16:28:44Z")
> [@](#): > > And technically, the Hague Conventions of 1899-1907 banned arming aircraft. It banned chemical weapons, too. The Hague Conventions, like the NNPT, have an option built in for countries that change their mind. Any signatory can tell the other signatories that it’s withdrawing from the treaty after giving notice (ninety days for the NNDT, one year for the Hague Conventions). ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203/27 "2010-04-07T16:55:33Z")
> [@Ranchoth](#): > > And technically, the Hague Conventions of 1899-1907 banned arming _aircraft_. It banned chemical weapons, too. The Kellogg-Briand pact went further, and outlawed the use of military force except in self defense. ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203/28 "2010-04-07T20:31:31Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > Except chemical and biological weapons are really not very effective. You can cause much more death and destruction with conventional weapons. About the only real advantage is the fact that it doesn’t harm physical structures. Of course the more effective versions do leave a long lasting residue that is expensive to clean up. Most nations have abandoned chemical weapons because they don’t make tactical or strategic sense, not because of their horrors. They’re good _terror_ weapons. They’re helpful at making up for a lack of _strength_ in conventional arms. They’re good at area denial. As I recall, they killed tens of thousands in the Iran-Iraq war, and left tens of thousands more as casualties. Not counting Kurds. The Tokyo Sarin attack only killed about a dozen, and injured thousands, as the nerve gas that was used by the cult that made it was an impure form. Yes, they’re less effective than, say, the United States Air Force. If you _have_ a United States Air Force. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Only if you assume we don’t have any non-nuclear options of our own. As it turns out, we managed to reach out and touch Saddam Hussein without using any nuclear weapons. Yes, Saddam Hussein, who didn’t attack coalition forces with his chemical stockpiles, possibly _because_ of the threat of nuclear retaliation, at least in part. And if we’re in a conflict with a country that has chemical arms, what’s the motivion _not_ to go chemical if we have troops on the ground? That we _won’t_ unleash a massive aerial bombing campaign to destroy their military and industrial infrastructure if they hold back? ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2010, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203/29 "2010-04-09T07:13:31Z")
No country is going to use nukes against the United States. Here’s what they’ll do, they’ll pay some two-bit, self styled terrorist to blow us up and then they can claim they had nothing to do with it. Remember WWI, a Serbian terrorist with an organization with ties to the Serbian government killed the archduke. Now how strong these ties were were still debateable. The best defence against the USA is still getting nukes. No president will risk any American lives. Sure if North Korea were stupid enough to nuke the US it’d do some major damage, well perhaps, but then the USA would be free to respond in kind with nukes and long story short, no North Korea. But by giving a terrorist a bomb or bombs and have them do the dirty work there is plausible deniability. And so what if Mr Obama, changes policy, we all know that policy can only last 7 more years at most, and can easily be modified later on. It’s just political talk. If France and Great Britian hadn’t relied on a promise by Hitler and started rearming sooner, they’d have a much tougher target for Hitler. Talk is cheap, and we all know politicans are 100% talk ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203/30 "2010-04-12T01:51:28Z")
This will encourage the secret production and stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons by Third-World dictatorships. Suppose for instance Iran perfected a mutated smallpox strain and released it on the US. Shouldn’t we at least threaten the use of nuclear weapons in such a case. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203/31 "2010-04-12T02:22:35Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > This will encourage the secret production and stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons by Third-World dictatorships. Suppose for instance Iran perfected a mutated smallpox strain and released it on the US. Shouldn’t we at least threaten the use of nuclear weapons in such a case. Have you been paying no attention to this story at all?! ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203/32 "2010-04-12T03:01:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Have you been paying no attention to this story at all?! Suppose they agreed to a compromise and ended their nuclear program but instead worked on a biological one? Or if say Myanmar or Libya or Venezuela or some nation without any nuclear ambition works in secret on chemical or biological ones? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203/33 "2010-04-12T03:04:45Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > Suppose they agreed to a compromise and ended their nuclear program but instead worked on a biological one? Or if say Myanmar or Libya or Venezuela or some nation without any nuclear ambition works in secret on chemical or biological ones? The story linked in the OP says: > [@](#): > > “If a non-nuclear weapons state is in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its obligations, the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it,” Gates said. If, however, such a state were to use chemical or biological weapons against the U.S. or its allies, “it would face the prospect of a devastating conventional,” or non-nuclear, military response. Which is just as it should be. Nuclear response would be disproportionate even to something on the order of Saddam Hussein’s gassing of the Kurds. And remember, the U.S. military is **really, really good** at devastating conventional responses. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203/34 "2010-04-12T03:11:22Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The story linked in the OP says: > > Which is just as it should be. Nuclear response would be disproportionate even to something on the order of Saddam Hussein’s gassing of the Kurds. And remember, the U.S. military is **really, really good** at devastating conventional responses. A biological weapon actually is probably more deadly than a single nuclear missile were it to be used and as the United States does not have chemical or biological weapons it’s only possible response would be a nuclear one. ---
**Author:** ![Oldeb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea666f/32.png) [@Oldeb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oldeb)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203/35 "2010-04-12T04:19:19Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > A biological weapon actually is probably more deadly than a single nuclear missile were it to be used and as the United States does not have chemical or biological weapons it’s only possible response would be a nuclear one. Not true. We have chemical weapon storage sites in Oregon, Colorado, Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, and Utah. We are slowly destroying the stuff (and have been since the 80’s) but we aren’t expected to get rid of it all until at least 2012. Some of that stuff is really hard to dispose of properly. While I can’t imagine the US ever using it, we do have plenty of chemical weapons left. The bio stuff is mostly true. We do produce small batches at the US Army Medical Research Center. It’s for defense research reasons, which I’m okay with, but again if we really wanted to we could start making the stuff extremely quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203/36 "2010-04-12T04:38:54Z")
> [@Markxxx](#): > > But by giving a terrorist a bomb or bombs and have them do the dirty work there is plausible deniability. First, nations just don’t DO that. They don’t hand over that kind of weapon to loose cannons like terrorists. We didn’t. The USSR didn’t. China doesn’t. Israel doesn’t. And second, plausible denability wouldn’t matter in the slightest. If Iran handed over a bomb to some terrorists and we got nuked, we’d nuke Iran in retaliation regardless of “plausible denability”, and they know it I’m sure. We might well nuke them in “retaliation” even if we have no idea as to who is actually responsible, and I’m sure they know that too. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203/37 "2010-04-14T03:23:33Z")
[Obama secures 47-nation pact at nuclear summit](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041300427.html?nav=rss_politics) ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2010, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203/38 "2010-04-14T04:13:15Z")
> [@Oldeb](#): > > Not true. We have chemical weapon storage sites in Oregon, Colorado, Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, and Utah. We are slowly destroying the stuff (and have been since the 80’s) but we aren’t expected to get rid of it all until at least 2012. Some of that stuff is really hard to dispose of properly. While I can’t imagine the US ever using it, we do have plenty of chemical weapons left. Sure, but how many people do we have who’re trained in using this stuff, offensively? How much of it is even still usable? Plus we’ve signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use—I don’t think it even allows their use in reprisal. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203/39 "2010-04-19T23:02:51Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > First, nations just don’t DO that. They don’t hand over that kind of weapon to loose cannons like terrorists. We didn’t. The USSR didn’t. China doesn’t. Israel doesn’t. But a cash-strapped post-Soviet kleptocracy might. Especially if some in its government have jihadist sympathies. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203/40 "2010-04-19T23:43:11Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > A biological weapon actually is probably more deadly than a single nuclear missile were it to be used and as the United States does not have chemical or biological weapons it’s only possible response would be a nuclear one. This isn’t the first time you’ve advocated this childish, tit-for-tat foreign policy. What you continually fail to recognize is that our capabilities are so much greater than any other country, that our deterrance for either strategic or conventional attack is based not only on firepower but also precision of effect. Let’s say Iran planned to launch a chemical weapon, Pearl Harbor type sneak attack on the US. In your world, you seem to think the only thing Iran fears would be the US nuking Tehran or the US killing massive numbers of Iranian with chemical weapons. In reality, our ability to strike with very large numbers of precision weapons is more fearsome to them. They know that within days, we could evicerate they key organs of their government with far, far fewer civilian casualties than a nuclear retaliatory strike. The fact is that we don’t need chemical or nuclear weapons to keep Iran from attacking us directly, because our conventional capabilities are overwhelming and there is no moral threshold we would have to cross to drop smart bombs, as opposed to nuclear weapons. It is a shame that for as great and powerful as you think America is, that you cannot see that the mulifaceted aspects of our power are so much more awesome than the single bludgeon you think we must rely upon. Here’s the reality: nuclear weapons are increasingly the weapon for weak states, not powerful ones. Chew on that for a while. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wont-nuke-those-w-o-nukes-except-nk-and-iran/535203.md?page=3)