There is this video clip showing President Obama answering comments from Sara Palin saying if you have nukes you would use them.
This is a comment I would never want to hear, nor any other people on earth, however trusting they can be, for mutual understandings on alliance. Are they that brutal enough just put that as their own policies?
The whole thing about nuclear disarmament is diplomacy, even when they may not look like speaking human tongue. Having the right channels is what matters. Then, how would you prevent nuclear proliferation? For those who already have nuclear bombs?
Think of a bunch of criminals that is holding a hostage. What exactly is the tipping point of their giving up? As that they have the weapons, they would use them. How would you proceed in such cases?
Calling them rogue, is probably not a good idea at this point. The police would call out to them, "we are not going to hurt you if you do not shoot" so give up your weapons and leave the hostage alone.
Setting the conditions on the usage of nuclear weapons, is one of the first steps to convince other nations that who you deal with is a reasonable partner. The cutting the number of the weapons is a gesture that is even more so. And as to confront with the potential enemy, you would not start with a fight.
The policy of not attacking non-nuclear nations disclosed in NPR 2010, is an effective, and especially persuasive tactics to nations whose tipping point is right around the corner, which is contemplating whether to possess nuclear weapons or not to possess them, how many and on what occasion should they be deployed.
This is a comment I would never want to hear, nor any other people on earth, however trusting they can be, for mutual understandings on alliance. Are they that brutal enough just put that as their own policies?
The whole thing about nuclear disarmament is diplomacy, even when they may not look like speaking human tongue. Having the right channels is what matters. Then, how would you prevent nuclear proliferation? For those who already have nuclear bombs?
Think of a bunch of criminals that is holding a hostage. What exactly is the tipping point of their giving up? As that they have the weapons, they would use them. How would you proceed in such cases?
Calling them rogue, is probably not a good idea at this point. The police would call out to them, "we are not going to hurt you if you do not shoot" so give up your weapons and leave the hostage alone.
Setting the conditions on the usage of nuclear weapons, is one of the first steps to convince other nations that who you deal with is a reasonable partner. The cutting the number of the weapons is a gesture that is even more so. And as to confront with the potential enemy, you would not start with a fight.
The policy of not attacking non-nuclear nations disclosed in NPR 2010, is an effective, and especially persuasive tactics to nations whose tipping point is right around the corner, which is contemplating whether to possess nuclear weapons or not to possess them, how many and on what occasion should they be deployed.