I read an interesting yahoo article that discussed Obama's new policy restricting U.S. use of nuclear weapons. The policy renounces U.S. development of new atomic weapons and forswears the use of atomic weapons against countries not bearing nuclear arms. However, it states that enemies who attack the U.S. who do not possess nuclear arms will only be spared nuclear retaliation if they are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (so we can still rain Nuc's on North Korea if they attack us). The policy provides momentum in the battle to ban nuclear arms before Obama signs an arms control treaty with Russia hosts a nuclear security summit in Washington. Despite this seemingly positive news the policy is already receiving criticism from liberal and conservatives alike. Many conservatives believe that the policy and the momentous events following it will leave the U.S. vulnerable while many liberals complain that Obama isn't taking the arms control movement far enough. I think it sounds like Obama has struck a pretty good middle ground. It would be unwise to promise to never use nuclear weapons, but it is also ridiculous that the U.S. has hundreds of nuclear bombs. What do you think of the policy? Is it appropriate? Has Obama gone to far? Not far enough? Do you think trusting other countries to follow the guidlines of the nuclear arms treaty is unwise?
POST!
I plan to discuss Obama's nuclear plan in my Junior Theme, and it intrigues me that he is taking this middle ground. However, it does fit his character quite swimmingly. This is quite a radical departure from our cold war stance of "we have to nuke them before they nuke us", and even the disarmament after the Cold war. This is an interesting path that Obama is deciding to tread, but an important decision as the conflicts of the world inevitably escalate.
ReplyDelete