April 7th, 2010
05:00 PM ET

Pres. Obama's new nuclear policy a good idea?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Iran continues to thumb its nose at the U.S. - this time by ridiculing President Obama's new nuclear strategy.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/07/art.obama.jpg caption="A landmark nuclear arms treaty between the U.S. and Russia imposes sweeping cuts on deployed Cold War-era nuclear warheads and missiles. Pres. Obama and Russian Pres. Dmitry Medvedev will sign the new pact in Prague tomorrow."]
In a speech to thousands of Iranians, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said: "Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer to politics. Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience.... American officials bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn't do a damn thing, let alone you."

He was referring to Mr. Obama's new nuclear policy - in which the U.S. pledges to stop developing new nuclear weapons and not to use existing weapons to attack non-nuclear states that follow non-proliferation agreements.

The administration believes the greatest threat to security is no longer nuclear attacks between nations... but instead nuclear terrorism by extremists.

To that end - they're singling out states like Iran and North Korea... saying that if they don't play the rules "all options are on the table"... which is probably the part that punk in Iran was whining about.

Some experts suggest that by targeting Iran and North Korea, the U.S. could unintentionally strengthen hard-liners in those countries who say nuclear weapons are the only way to protect themselves.

Meanwhile - critics, including some Republicans, believe just the opposite - that the president isn't applying enough pressure on these state supporters of terrorism. They have a point. Remember Obama's so-called deadline for Iran's nuclear program that came and went last year? Iran ignored it. We did nothing.

The announcement of this new strategy comes just days before Pres. Obama is set to sign a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia - that would reduce both countries' nuclear weapons stockpiles.

Here’s my question to you: Is Pres. Obama's new nuclear policy a good idea or does it reduce the deterrent value of our arsenal?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Klik in Atlanta writes:
What good is it to have an arsenal, of any kind, if your opponents know the decision tree that must be followed to use it?

A. in Oregon writes:
No nuclear response unless it's a first strike or a massive biological weapon attack on America. Yes, it's a good idea and long overdue.

Greg in Ontario writes:
I don't know why you give any time or attention to (as you so perfectly described him) this punk. Just tell them, "Go ahead, do what you want. But know this: If you cause the death of an American, you will be obliterated from the face of the planet." President Obama should make that statement a promise in the United Nations.

Moe in Atlanta writes:
I believe that it is a good idea to start decreasing our nuclear weapon arsenal. We need to be leaders on this and show that we are not arrogant; that is, demand other nations to do something while we do not do that very thing. Besides, will giving up a few thousand nuclear weapons actually mean anything to us, when we still have thousands more?

S. in Georgia writes:
Obama is all talk and no action! Iran and North Korea are going to continue to do whatever they want. They could care less about the sanctions that the U.S. wants to impose. Ahmadinejad knows Obama is not going to do anything and has been laughing at him the whole time.

David in Las Vegas writes:
Blah, blah, blah. Yada, yada, yada. And if that doesn't work, we'll threaten everyone with SANCTIONS. Question: What do you call a country below a 'Paper Tiger'? Good luck, Mr. President.

Kenny in California writes:
Pres. Obama's new nuclear policy will be the old policy when another hawk is elected president. Atom bashing will again become atom smashing. The White House comes with a revolving door.

Filed under: President Barack Obama
soundoff (125 Responses)
  1. Bertina

    Yes, its a good idea. Should have been done decades ago.

    April 7, 2010 at 3:40 pm |
  2. Peg from N.Y.

    When dealing woth Iran and North Korea one can never be too careful or too well armed. I'm just saying...

    April 7, 2010 at 3:40 pm |
  3. Jurgen R. Brul

    Hello Jack Cafferty and CNN friends,

    President Obama's new nuclear policy is a good idea to Stop Terrorist, Maintain Ground and Really Build Up America and its Allies. The United Nations Weapons Inspectors must disarm Iran and North Korea of its weapons of mass destruction! Otherwise the U.S. and its Allies must Attack Iran and North Korea in order to disarm them from weapons of mass destruction!

    Jurgen R. Brul

    April 7, 2010 at 3:41 pm |
  4. Greg, Ontario

    I don't know why you give any time or attention to (as you so perfectly described him ) this punk. Just tell them go ahead do what you want, but know this, If you cause the death of an American you will be obliterated from the face of the planet. President Obama should make that statement a promise in the United nations.

    April 7, 2010 at 3:43 pm |
  5. Dean D.Ellis

    Question: Is Pres. Obama's new nuclear policy a good idea or does it reduce the deterrent value of our arsenal?

    Sources that I’ve read indicate a reduction from 2,200 to 1,500 is proposed. Jack, if we cannot destroy the majority of planet Earth’s environment and human population with 700 fewer weapons then I would opine that we bought a “pig in a nuke”. The Republicans love killing and M.A.D., Mutually Assured Destruction is still assured at least twice over. Perhaps Vegas could help us with updated odds. They ain't too far from one of our former test sites.

    April 7, 2010 at 3:46 pm |
  6. Jack in Florida

    It is a good idea. There are enough nuclear weapons to destroy our earth a thousand times over. How is it possible to reduce the deterrent value of our arsenal when we and our enemies do not even know what the value is? Ahmadinejad is criticising President Obama?
    Where did he get his political experience? He is merely a figurehead for the muslim clerics who rule his country and has no power other than his pretentious blathering.

    April 7, 2010 at 3:47 pm |
  7. Jim

    I think it reduces the deterrent value of our arsenal. Even if other countries follow suite, the rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea have given no indication that they would. When you also consider that Russia is now helping Vensuela develop nuclear weapons, who knows what they would do. I also find it strange that in the 1960's we were brave enough to put up a blockade against Cuba to stop the Russians from putting nuclear weapons there but have to wonder what we would do to stop Vensuela from doing the same thing. I doubt it. We now have too many "rogue" nations pursuing nuclear weapons to stop them all so I think the treaty is a bad idea.

    April 7, 2010 at 3:52 pm |
  8. MNResident

    Ronald Reagan was right: There's a bear in the woods. You don't know what the bear is going to do. Obama thinks we need to drop our defences to try and please the bear, but the bear doesn't understand our language, nor judge our intentions in the same way we do. Doesn't it make sense to be as strong as the bear?

    April 7, 2010 at 3:56 pm |
  9. katiec Pekin, IL

    President Obama is dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn't.
    This nuclear agreement with Russia is great accomplishment, one we have been seeking for many years.
    Your statement, Jack, critics, some republicans is amusing. You, I the country knows the majority of republicans are going to criticize and try to obstruct anything our president does.

    April 7, 2010 at 4:08 pm |
  10. Kevin in Dallas

    It would take a few years of world war 3 for this country to build up enough hatred and disregard for collateral damage for us to ever really use a nuclear weapon again. We have more compassion for our enemies than we do for our soldiers.

    April 7, 2010 at 4:14 pm |
  11. marlene in mich

    Jack, this policy is a good idea, in that the world will reduce the number of nuclear weapons. It doesn't take more than 1,500 bombs to be a deterrent. Ignore Iran and North Korean protests and do something for the rest of the world. Marlene in Mich

    April 7, 2010 at 4:14 pm |
  12. Ray in Nashville

    Jack, to whom is our nuclear arsenal supposed to be a deterrent? China? They are already on their way to destroying us economically. Russia? They are more concerned with producing oil and gas and economically dominating their corner of the world. Obama's new policy is good PR, but it basically recognizes a fact of life, that fighting in the 21st century has changed and we must change with it.

    April 7, 2010 at 4:15 pm |
  13. Steve, Clifton, VA

    The policy places a great deal more emphasis on the proliferation of nuclear weapons among terrorist rogue countries and less focus on the competition between the super powers relative to a nuclear arms race. The focus shifts strategically and subsequently places Iran in a more uncomfortable position in it's endeavors to produce nuclear weapons. Iran has figured out what position they have been placed in and now wants to create a detraction to question the Obama new nuclear policy. Iran is being outmaneuvered and out thought. It is becoming more apparent that they are intellectual midgets. They would have preferred the rough tough cowboy trashing talking administration than an administration that can Peel back the onion and expose their weaknesses.

    April 7, 2010 at 4:19 pm |
  14. luke kuehling

    This is ridicules! I have never agreed with republicans but on this I agree. If Iran thinks that they can get away with things with no consequence, then something is wrong. I have a feeling that Machiavelli would have many good things to say on this matter if he were around.

    April 7, 2010 at 4:20 pm |
  15. Ca Dream USA

    I mjust have one question ,Why is America concerned with this when we have a major problem brewing right here in America ; The far right is attempting to start a new civil war in this country, Starting with the governor of Virginia making april the history month of the confederate .
    Wow talking about bringing back the good old day's ,Giving honor to those who fault against the freedom of African Americans, Soon segregation will start all over again...Shame on CNN for not reporting on this issue of pure hate......
    And that all I have to say about that....God Bless America and Our President.....

    April 7, 2010 at 4:20 pm |
  16. John Holmes in San Fernando Valley

    Do not know. From what Obama has done so far, what he says is different than what he does.

    April 7, 2010 at 4:20 pm |
  17. Eric - Houston

    I don't know Jack, I have concerns but am hopeful. What I do not like however is how so many important issues which should be consistent over the long term are done unilaterally with no buy in by the Senate and the opposition party. This means that this turn about, like others which may be good things, can easily be reversed in less than three or possibly seven years. I believe that these issues are way too important to be handled in this way. President Obama is not the first to write executive orders or to reverse them, but our nuclear deterrence policy should not be handled this way. He may be right, but he didn't even debate it

    April 7, 2010 at 4:20 pm |
  18. Duke, Sarasota

    As long as Sarah Palin doesn't end up with the codes written on the
    palms of her hands, we'll be pretty safe.

    Keep em coming, Jack!

    April 7, 2010 at 4:22 pm |
  19. Diane Dagenais Turbide


    why would anyone even consider comments from Iran leadership in regards to U.S. nuclear policy that is not a new policy but a simple evolution from its natural path of sending a clear message on how to reduce the risk of nuclear weapons in terrorists hands! But how can anyone expect Iran leader to get such a clear message when all the rhetoric so far from that leader remain unchange and immature!

    April 7, 2010 at 4:23 pm |
  20. Remo, from beautiful downtown Pflugerville, Texas

    Jack, unfortunately Ahmadinejad is right this time. If you think, during war, whoever you're fighting is going to play fair then you've lost. By limiting yourself, you're setting your country up for a loss. Does the 38th parrallel in Korea ring a bell, or Vietnam? How about when the first Bush, told our troops to stop advancing in Iraq? Once you let a politician tell you how to fight, you've lost whatever you're fighting. We have a military with their various warfare colleges for a reason, to learn how not to lose. To learn from our mistakes. No president, except for Ike, had a clear understanding of war and how to wage or prevent it. Mr. Obama should let the experts handle this,

    April 7, 2010 at 4:27 pm |
  21. Ant vs Grasshopper

    It is another poor decision like his unwillingness to create jobs (higher taxes, destroying unpaid internships that help with experience for future employment) and for raising healthcare costs (aren't they high enough already?). But what do you expect with all his and Hillary's great foreign policy experience? Palin was right even if simple in that she did have to deal with the Russians.
    He thinks only about his simple, non-consensus views at the first stage and never contemplates the ramifications in the later stages.
    Allah help us!!!

    April 7, 2010 at 4:28 pm |
  22. Gary - Woodhaven, Michigan

    It is an excellent idea.

    A few years ago the U.N. did a study on what was the greatest threat to mankind. They found that it is not nuclear weapons, not global warming, but rather the greatest threat to mankind is each other. We are our greatest enemy for survival.

    It is time to try and reach out for peace, to do what is right no matter the judgments and criticisms, we all know what the outcome of bully against bully always results in, it is time to change.

    April 7, 2010 at 4:29 pm |
  23. Mary, Lansdowne Virginia

    Our greatest threat to our security are all our threats to Iran. Leave Iran alone. People use Ahmadinejad's pronouncements as a prelude to war. What about all our public pronouncements about obliterating Iran, annihilating Iran. Our threatening Iran only creates more enemies for us.
    This is the same lead-up to our attack on Iraq. Now those same folks (and media) are focussed in Iran.
    You may notice that those itching for another war in the Middle East use the phrase Iran's nuclear "weapons" – not Iran's nuclear program or Iran's nuclear energy. Repeat: Leave Iran alone!

    April 7, 2010 at 4:34 pm |
  24. Paul New Port Richey Fl

    Ahmadinejad called Obama's hollow bluff and Obama folded up just like a cheap beach chair. I'd like to have seen Iran try to pull this on Reagan.

    April 7, 2010 at 4:35 pm |
  25. Mark, Oklahoma City

    Mr. Obama's policy is obvious, he wants a nuclear IRAN to balance out a nuclear Israel.

    April 7, 2010 at 4:36 pm |
  26. Mark Republican in PA

    Jack, I think his approach makes lots of sence. We don't need the deterent for the superpowers, we need the focus on the terroristic states and groups, and we need to be in concert with the superpowers on this. Worring about whether Iran will feel this is a threat and use it as a reason and justification as to why they need nuclear weapons is a non starter, they want them to threaten us and ewspecially the neighbors in the middle east and to use that threat to hold their country together with fear, but it isn't working. The superpowers know that being able to kill the enemy more than once is really not a deterent, so if we all reduce our overkill in the name of banding together to stop the nuclear terrorist threat then that makes sence..

    April 7, 2010 at 4:39 pm |
  27. Kenny in the High Desert of California

    Pres. Obama's new nuclear policy will be the old policy when another Hawk is elected President. Atom bashing will again become atom smashing. The White House comes with a revolving door.

    April 7, 2010 at 4:42 pm |
  28. David Gerstenfeld

    Blah, blah, blah; yada,yada, yada; and if that doesn't work we'll threaten everyone with SANCTIONS. Question: what do you call a country below a 'Paper Tiger' ? Good luck Mr. President.
    David, Las Vegas

    April 7, 2010 at 4:43 pm |
  29. Sue, Hawley, PA

    I think President Obama is way too inexperienced in the area of foreign policy, let alone his political inexperience which has rang through loud & clear this past year, to start messing with our nuclear arsenal/policies. First the space shuttle program goes, now a part of our nuclear arsenal. What's next? I can't imagine what he'll come up with. Oh.....I know! Next is illegal immigration. Since illegals aren't covered under the new healthcare bill, here comes amnesty. It probably won't be called that, but that will eventually be the end result. That's my prediction anyway.

    April 7, 2010 at 4:44 pm |
  30. Lance, Ridgecrest, Ca

    Jack, just another stupid move on the list of many for Obama, proving again that he has no understanding of foreign policy. Prove to Iran and the rest of the world, again, that he is a whimp without a coherent policy, and a mouth full of words that establish deadlines that mean nothing. The fact that he is removing options from the table can only serve to embolden those terrorist countries that now know he won't do anything nuclear, as long as they don't.

    April 7, 2010 at 4:46 pm |
  31. Terry from Illinois

    President Obama is trying to do the right thing but Iran and North Korea are going to resist against outsiders trying to control there nuclear programs until the rest of the world joins in .

    April 7, 2010 at 4:48 pm |
  32. Brian - Trinidad

    I think its time for everyone to admit,albeit reluctantly,that Obama and his dream team have no clue about anything.If you could go back in time to the campaign and list his accomplishments to date as campaign promises – large deficit,mismanaged economy escalation of the war on terror, disrespect for US foreign policy -,you would have believed that McCain/Palin were going to do all those things as they are a continuation of Bush.Time to tell it like it is fellas!

    April 7, 2010 at 4:48 pm |
  33. Thom Richer

    Finally! Could it be that this president is his own man? How encouraging is that?

    Thom Richer
    Negaunee, MI

    April 7, 2010 at 4:48 pm |
  34. Greg M.

    The way things are going we at least need to keep some form of nuclear weapons at the ready.To use them only in response to an attack is a far better policy but I would only use as a last resort.We may have the technology to shoot down an attacking missile before it re-enters the atmosphere...but what do i know.Just because I am a citizen doesn't give me the right to know what my own government is up to or capable of.
    Greg M. Largo,FL

    April 7, 2010 at 4:48 pm |
  35. steve- virginia beach

    You've really watered this one down. Shortly after Russia announced they're upgrading their nuclear arsenal, he announces that we won't upgrade our deteriorating arsenal. And we'll play nice with anyone who wants to attack us with chemical or biological WMDs with two exceptions- the homicidal maniacs in N Korea and Iran who he provoked. This on the heels of publically embarrassing our allies. After publically embarrassing his own country with his apology tour and smackdown at the UN. None of this is going to deter anyone. The real question is "who's side is he on?".

    April 7, 2010 at 4:49 pm |
  36. ken, nj

    obamas nuclear policy is typical hypocrisy. Everyone we like can have nukes but iran and n. korea can't because we don't like them. Iran who is called evil has not invaded another country in over 200 years, but israel bombed iraq, syria, lebanon, the west bank, and terrorises the palestinians every day but it is ok for israel to have nuclear weapons and build nuclear power plants. The u.s. is the only country to use nuclear weapons and killed thousand of japanese civilians but we can have thousands of nukes. Iran and n. korea are member states of the u.n. and have just as much right as israel and the u.s. to develop nuclear technology without threats and sanctions.

    April 7, 2010 at 4:49 pm |
  37. Michael Roepke - Dallas, TX

    When I was a kid, we hid under our desks about once a month practicing to stay safe during a future Russian nuclear attack. When I was a bit older, Berry Goldwater wanted to defoliate Viet Nam with nuclear weapons. Today we have a policy of limiting these weapons and their future uses. Is President Obama's new nuclear policy a good idea. Well, the policy is a good idea, but unfortunately the fact that it is President Obama’s makes it a bad idea for otherwise thinking people.

    April 7, 2010 at 4:50 pm |
  38. Michael, Lorton, Virginia

    Jack: No matter who signs the agreements to stop developing new nuclear weapons and not to use existing weapons to attack non-nuclear states that follow non-proliferation agreements-–the bottom line--can you "trust" the participants---It is an equal failing to trust everybody, and to trust nobody.

    April 7, 2010 at 4:50 pm |
  39. Klik, Atlanta GA

    What good is it to have an aresenal, of any kind, if your opponents know the decision tree that must be followed to use it?

    April 7, 2010 at 4:52 pm |
  40. Dan, Chantilly VA

    Deterrent against what? Long gone are the days of the cold war with large states pointing missiles at each other. We're dealing with an enemy that is scattered in small groups composed of people willing to blow themselves up for their cause. They don't care that we have enough nukes to destroy humanity 10 times over. That said, war is ever evolving and we might return to the days of wars between countries, so it's a good idea to hold on to a few as Obama is planning to do. You never know when China will try to close on our tab and what they'll do when we can't pay up.

    April 7, 2010 at 4:52 pm |
  41. marja hartzell-oforji

    Hi, mr. Cafferty,
    From the first time I saw you in Then Situation Room, I have been a great admirer of your intellect. Now I have ordered the two last books of yours, and it goes without saying, that I'm eagerly waiting foe them to arrive. What specially interests me, is your honourable battle against alcoholism. One can`t admire enough everyone who has won that battle. I have been working with alcoholics, so I have seen how terribly hard it is, how much energy it takes.
    I wish you and your family the very best.
    Retired Finnish teacher

    April 7, 2010 at 4:53 pm |
  42. EugeneWiese

    I think Obama's nuclear policy is great. How could it reduce the detterent?Ronald Reagan saw to it we had asurplus and that was too much(the government was the problem0. Gene

    April 7, 2010 at 4:56 pm |
  43. Richard Fairview, Texas

    Obama's nuclear policy is a joke. He made idol threats and Ahmadinejad called his bluff. Now Obama has egg on his face. Obama does not have a very good poker face and if he is not careful he will leave America holding Ace's and Eights or what is commonly known as a dead mans hand in the nuclear game. Nuclear treaties only work with countries who respect and honor treaties. Terrorists, Iran and North Korea play by a different set of rules.

    April 7, 2010 at 4:58 pm |
  44. Louis Fleece

    LMFSr – Richmond, Va.

    Mr. Ahmadinejad is correct. It does not matter who attempted to address the issue, they attempted stalemating and bluffing and bullying.

    Stalemate is not likely with this foe, we have more to lose. We lose when they call a bluff if we don’t follow through and everybody loses if we do follow through.

    The weapons exist and we have the advantage. If we expect others to stop developing new nuclear weapons then why is it wrong to state the we are going to stop developing new nuclear weapons? Should we play the rules we expect other states to play?

    The weapons industry’s spin has been dictating our actions up to present times. How many times over do we need to be capable of destroying the planet?

    April 7, 2010 at 4:59 pm |
  45. Dennis North Carolina

    obama's policy is a step forward and the arsenal is still in place for use against Iran and north Korea. in fact we can use this power against any enemy who attacks us.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:00 pm |
  46. steve- virginia beach

    Announcing that we won't replace our deteriorating nuclear weapons whie everyone else is and that chemical or biological attacks would be met only with conventional response isn't going to deter anyone from doing anything. Ahmadinejad bullying him is a clue.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:01 pm |
  47. Mel Seyffert - Houston

    It's to late for any one nation to control the spread of nuclear proliferation. This should be a United Nation problem. However, there has to be major reforms in that organization before this can happen. The UN's military needs to change from a peace keeping mission to be the meanest and most advanced force on earth. If it strikes the fear of God into its member nations then its sanctions might mean something more than a slap of the hand. Part of these reforms also needs for its headquarters to move to a neutral country so that it doesn't appear to be a puppet of the US. When these reforms have taken place then the US can get out of the role as policeman of the world. We can't afford it any longer. Then we can spend our tax dollar on things that are import to our every day lives.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:02 pm |
  48. SLK 65

    Obama is all talk and no action! Iran and North Korea are going to continue to do what ever they want. They could care less about the sanctions that the US wants to impose. Ahmadinejad knows Obama is not going to do anything and has been laughing at him the whole time. With Obama the middle east still hates us and now we pissed off some of our friends. Yep, we are perfectly safe! HA HA HA.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:02 pm |
  49. Ben from Boston


    I don't buy the President's claim that his new nuclear policy strenghens the U.S. I recall his claim last year that negotiations with Iran together with a deadline would strengthen the U.S.-Iranian relations. Today I see the President of Iran mocking President Obama. Next year I fear headlines of new terrorist attacks on the U.S, because of our weakening military posture.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:03 pm |
  50. Joseph Kavanaugh

    Nuclear weapons are like a tournequet. Last resort. Reducing the arsenol would be a good idea. But like a good game of cards, the United States will always have an extra card up it's sleeve in a nuclear event. The message to all countries is basically that those that have it really shoundnt use it, those that dont have it, shouldnt persue it. The stage presence of the 2 super powers willing to diminish it's stockpile will have no bearing on those rouge nations willing to inflict harm on others. Communication, not detonation is the key..

    Postal Joe

    Rock Hill, NY

    April 7, 2010 at 5:04 pm |
  51. EugeneWiese

    Things are much better than a year ago. Except for those without jobs.There is a sense of security,the market is up,and the Republicans are going in the wrong direction,look at The state of Virginia,still fighting the civil war,what a bunch of BullS-t.The Reagan Revolution is over ,thanks be to God. Gene

    April 7, 2010 at 5:04 pm |
  52. Alex in Gig Harbor

    The old policy did not deter them and the new policy may not as well. It does increase the pressure on Iran and N. Korea without resorting to further sanctions that usually only hurt the people but not the leaders. It also provides a carrot for complying with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty so the new policy may be a good idea.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:05 pm |
  53. Jeff In Minnesota

    To a lot of people, having a really big gun is the only way to prove that you should be feared. We need to try this approach and see how it works. It's not like we're getting rid of everything, we're just not going to be able to annihilate the world fifty times over when on once is all it takes.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
  54. Don (Belleville, Ontario)

    Jack. Stop trying to stir up the hawks in America. The new nuclear policy is a positive step for the entire world. Anything that might reduce nuclear weapons and (hopefully) spending on weapons is welcome news. Mr. Ahmadinejad is probably correct in his mild admonition to President Obama, who obviously does lack experience in world matters. Less American military and CIA involvement in the world will help peace break out all over the globe.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:06 pm |
  55. Ralph Spyer

    If the third World War is fought with nuclar weapons'the fourth will be fought with bows and arrows" Lord Louis Mountbatten canadian magazine 1975

    April 7, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  56. Layne Alleman

    Jack, With the technology that most of the U.S. arms suppliers are using today, I would bet that most of the weapons being discussed are, basically, antiques. If you recall, the same sort of agreements were done in the 70's and 80's, and everyone involved( and a few new countries) went right ahead creating newer and bigger bombs and warheads. President Obama is simply trying to appease the left and anyone else who frets over nuclear war. Everyone please take a breath; we, and everyone else in " the club", have, and ALWAYS will have, enough nuclear weapons to destroy this universe many times over. So relax, if anyone really gets out of control; we'll simply wipe the area of the face off the face of the earth. We've done it before, and it's only a matter of time and need before we do it again. Layne A. Antioch, Il.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
  57. Ant vs Grasshopper; Wisconsin

    It is another poor decision like his unwillingness to create jobs (higher taxes, destroying unpaid internships that help with experience for future employment) and for raising healthcare costs (aren't they high enough already?). But what do you expect with all his and Hillary's great foreign policy experience? Palin was right even if simple in that she did have to deal with the Russians.
    He thinks only about his simple, non-consensus views at the first stage and never contemplates the ramifications in the later stages.
    Allah help us!!

    April 7, 2010 at 5:09 pm |
  58. steve- virginia beach

    Clinton thought it a good idea to decimate our military since the cold war was over. Turned out to be a Dumbocrat idea. What arsenal are you asking about? The one that's deteriorating and won't be replaced? Obama's nuclear policy is another Dumbocrat plan.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:11 pm |
  59. Annie, Atlanta

    The fact that these weapons exist at all makes any kind of policy or treaty just another form of political theater. Terrorists? They have to get them from someone who has them. Some food for thought: Palin came way too close for comfort to the "button."

    April 7, 2010 at 5:11 pm |
  60. George,New Jersey

    The world changed in 1945, I feel the next time a decision is made by any country will be a world without a future.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:12 pm |
  61. A. Smith, Oregon

    Yes it's always a good idea to slap Bush-Cheney across the face over Bush jr's routine use of threatening to use Nuclear bombs to solve Bush jr's numerous diplomatic problems around the world.

    No nuclear response unless it's a first strike or a massive biological weapon attack on America. YES it's a good idea and LONG overdue.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:14 pm |
  62. Scott Stodden

    As a Democrat I have no problem with going towards a nucular world but why should we? America is not out there going into countries unless provoked shooting rockets and bombs into other countries. There should be only a few countries that can possess nucular warheads America, Great Britan, Canada, and maybe a few others who've never posed a threat to our country! This might not be the best of moves because in my eyes even though we possess the most nucular weapons in the world it still makes us less safe if something we're to happen! I don't like it Jack and Im a Democrat, I know its hard to believe!

    Scott Stodden (Freeport,Illinois)

    April 7, 2010 at 5:14 pm |
  63. Ken in NC

    It’s not a new policy. It’s just a re-wording of what we all already know and that is that we are not going to put nukes on a non-nuke nation that, in any way attacks or causes us or our interest undo harm.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:14 pm |
  64. Timmy Lee

    Any world with less nuclear warheads is a world I would like to see my children live in.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:15 pm |
  65. John Ferrante

    I think what the president is doing is great. If we are tryign to stop others from using, or making new nukes why should be? Hypocrites, I see no use in this kind of war fare, this is not the cold war, we can't live like this anymore. Keep it up Mr. President, fight fire with pragmatism

    April 7, 2010 at 5:16 pm |
  66. Moe from Atlanta

    I believe that it is a good idea to start decreasing our nuclear weapon arsenal. We need to be leaders on this and show that we are not arrogant; that is, demand other nations to do something while we do not do that very thing. Besides, will giving up a few thousand nuclear weapons actually mean anything to us, when we still have thousands more?

    April 7, 2010 at 5:16 pm |
  67. Chris Irvine

    The bombing of Iran or any soveriegn nation, because of non-compliance with an international treaty, is not appropriate, There has to be a clear, direct, imminent and provable danger to the national security of the United States. Such conditions do not exist at this time... and do not seem to be about to exist any time soon. Everyone needs to calm down. Diplomacy with dispicable people, like the governments of Iran and North Korea, may be a near impossible exercise-but it is still a far better alternative to war... which should only be used when there is no other choice AND the danger from these nations is immediate.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:16 pm |
  68. JP

    The president needs follow through with his promise of sanctions, because this bully in Iran is just laughing at all the perceived pressure the US is trying to place on them.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:16 pm |
  69. Lou

    Sure it's great idea! Especially when you compare it to recent foreign policy like false prewar policy of WMD's in Iraq, neglecting the area that hurt our country on 9-11 for the past decade, and allowing our neighbors to do little to nothing to provide for the common defense of our liberty and freedom from these punks....

    April 7, 2010 at 5:17 pm |
  70. Jordan Edwards

    Jack its a good idea thats been a long time coming. The Cold War mentality has got to go. I was born after the fall of the Berlin wall and after the collapse of the Soviet Union. That era is dead and gone so we need to understand the post-9/11 era has begun. Terrorism and nuclear terrorism is our primary threat. Obama was right to reposture our nuclear weapons and refocus our international agenda. Jack what is our new policy toward Israel?

    April 7, 2010 at 5:17 pm |
  71. Karl from SF, CA

    Let’s face it, if anyone ever uses nuclear weapons there will be one less rock floating around the sun because we will be space gravel. We got rid of Bush-Cheney and now it’s time to get rid of their war mongering policies. There will still be enough bombs to eliminate the world many times over. As for Iran and North Korea, do we need a couple more preemptive wars to fight and finance? Neither is going anywhere soon. Let them strut all they want and then slap them down when the time comes.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:18 pm |
  72. larry

    jack, I think showing weakness and devide in our country make`s other rouge country`s race to destroy the usa

    April 7, 2010 at 5:19 pm |
  73. Adam

    President Obama's new nuclear policy is an excellent idea, anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves about the current state of nuclear policy between nations. You nuke us, we nuke you. That is the only situation we will realistically use our nuclear arms. As long as that stays (and it will) we are applying as much nuclear "deterrent" as anyone else. Also, i think conservatives should remember that we have enough nukes in our arsenal to destroy the world several times over, slimming that number down won't in any way hurt our security.

    -Wrightwood, California

    April 7, 2010 at 5:19 pm |
  74. Greg H - Minneapolis

    Jack, Obama's decision with respect to the use of nuclear weapons is good...if you are a potential ENEMY! By limiting the use, he opens up the door to an attack on the U.S. even wider than it already is! Just what does he think would be if terrorists succeeded in making a fictional scenario become REALITY by detonating a nuclear weapon somewhere in the U.S.?? You can bet if there was the smallest HINT of such an attack pending on Washington, that he would be the FIRST to high-tail it to safety, leaving ordinary citizens to suffer the fate of an attack. An attack that would be less likely were the use of nuclear weapons to not be limited, nor the circumstances of their use be disclosed lest a potential enemy know those circumstances.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:19 pm |
  75. Andre Heyward

    Yes I do think reducing our nuclear arsenal is a good thing since it is hypocritical for us to demand others not pursue nuclear weapons when we have such a large arsenal. I don't think it diminishes the deterrent factor of our weapons either since we still have missiles and look in the history books we were the only ones to use them. Given the right situation I don't think you could say we wouldn't use them again.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:19 pm |
  76. Kelvin Owens, Atlanta

    1 or 500,000 nuclear weapons. How many nuclear weapons does it take to bring a country to its knees?

    My recollection says only 2.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:19 pm |
  77. Docb

    We have thousands of warheads–stockpiled by the military industrial complex! This will serve to make us look stronger..by agreements with Russia 30 years after the Cold War ended..It will also put the rouges on notice that our Countries are aligned in peace! It deters the runt in Iran too–as well as little Kim!

    Narrow the distances between the biggies and you have made real progress!

    April 7, 2010 at 5:20 pm |
  78. Richard - Shreveport, LA

    I think the President's announcement is confusing. I don"t see where it has changed much. The country, the President and the Democratic party would be better off if he had not made this announcement and had just crowed about the agreement with Russia.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:20 pm |
  79. Chris

    Nuclear weapons are not deterrent, they are weapons of mass destruction that kill innocent civilians. No country should ever use them against another. The new guidelines are a step in the right direction. It is just upsetting that the administration did not go all the way to the position we should take; complete, immediate, and unilateral nuclear disarmament. If we want to be world leaders, we have to lead by example.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:21 pm |
  80. steve- virginia beach

    The clown prince of foriegn policy has done it again. His policies aren't going to deter anything except the possibility that other leaders will take him seriously.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:21 pm |
  81. James B Doerrer

    I read this policy. It seems not to change much. We have never used nukes even in Iraq. If we use nukes, the radioactive cloud wold effect other countries not involved in the dispute. The fall out is almost worse than the blast. The new nukes are 10 times more powerful than the ones used in 1945.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:22 pm |
  82. Dave in S.C.

    I can't help wonder if Ahmadinejad is a card carring tea partier. Sounds like he took a couple of pages out of Bachman and Palins playbook. We have enough nuclear capability to send a bomb there daily for the next 4 to 5 years and they know it.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:22 pm |
  83. D. Ross

    Obama's policy might work in a perfect world, but not this one.It is truly naive to say we will not develop new nuclear weapons. We can pledge to not use nuclear capabilities against non-nuclear states, but why announce to the world we will intentionally weaken ourselves. One doesn't broadcast his weaknesses before going into competition with an opponent.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:23 pm |
  84. Rob, Port Saint Lucie, Fl

    What difference if the U.S. reduces it's nuclear arms. If we dismantle 50% of them there would still be enough to destroy every living microbe in Iran about 500 times over

    April 7, 2010 at 5:23 pm |
  85. Bill K Reseda, Ca.

    I'm sorry Jack but Mr.Obama has done nothing that he had promised while running for President . There is no transparent government as he promised, the war in Afghanistan that was to end if he won the presidency is not only still raging on , but raging on with a additional 70,000 troops he's sending over . Obama promised programs to create millions of jobs and yet , the jobless rate has only grown since Obama took office . So is President Obama's new nuclear policy a good idea . . . it's exactly that , just a good idea.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:23 pm |
  86. Gigi Oregon

    President Obama's way is the right way. It's not only his Idea it should be every faith believing persons in the world. We have nothing to fear except fear it's self. And we have been bullied long enough with that weapon of mass destruction. I believe we are not alone in this program but are being joined with other countries/nations.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:23 pm |
  87. Alan

    (From Milwaukee) I think its a nice display of goodwill to nations who participate in the program and non nuclear states, and it represents Obama's pledge not to pursue the strong arm foreign policy style of his predecessors. The problem is that jokers like Ahmadinejad and kim Jung Il only seem to respond to strong-arm tactics. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is talking tough, but its just talk- he knows that if he steps too far over that line, he's toast.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  88. Pam holt

    Foley,al. Jack, it really doesn"t matter what Obama comes up with, after two illegal wars from the bush administration, and the rest if the worlds having seen that there were no weapons of mass detruction, this has become a moot point. In the eyes of the world, they"re damned if they do , or damned if they don"t, so why not go ahead and build their weapons of mass destruction. After all, all that has to take place in order for a war to be lodged against another country, is for the president to say that there are weapons of mass destruction in that country. The precedent has already been set.... What do we expect other countries citizens to expect from their leaders after having seen the results....

    April 7, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  89. JIM,Roanoke,Va

    Ahamadinejah is right !! O'bama is a weak leader.He can't stop Iran from getting nukes.Maybe, he can talk to his ole pal Hugo Chavez and see if he can help us out. In the meantime cut the threats and go sit in a corner and sulk !!!!! Could be another peace prize waits around the corner.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  90. ricky

    jack, ahamadeneja is playing game with the rest of the world .We just need to let isreal destroying their arsenal arena

    April 7, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  91. Jonathan

    The president seems to be anti USA in most all bills he's signed since being in office; signing a bill that weakens our defenses seems par for the course!

    Oklahoma City

    April 7, 2010 at 5:25 pm |
  92. Olivier

    We need to keep our nuclear arsenal in touch and powerful because we have many threats from extremist and even established countries who hate us and will attack us. if we show them signs we are weak and are afraid of war they can and will take the advantage to rally people in countries who already hate us like iran and north Korea. if we do this it is just another try from the government to fool us into thinking they are doing something. we are already in a war. should we not keep our selfs prepared?

    April 7, 2010 at 5:25 pm |
  93. John Marsolais

    It's a no brainer. In the eyes of much of the world, President Obama starts earning his Nobel Peace prize, and we still have enough missles to blow up any adversary to smitherines. It's a win-win as I see it.

    Albany, NY

    April 7, 2010 at 5:25 pm |
  94. Mel from Carlisle PA

    The new policy is a great idea. After all, it is change. It will never lower the strength of our arsenal. No matter what, if a country wants to have a war with us, our arsenal's value has nothing to do with it. What matters is our relations and trust with other countries which Obama is trying to improve.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:26 pm |
  95. Jim Brennan

    Jack ,,, you're right, he's a punk. He's looking for headlines. Even a dialogue. Let's not fall into his trap. Just sanctions, snactions, and more sanctions. Then let him deal with his people who already know that he is indeed a punk. His days are already numbered.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:27 pm |
  96. gretchen applegate

    Yes, President Obama's nuclear policy is a great idea. At least he is addressing the problem and so far, in his short time in office, he has done more for the people of the US plus strengthen our worth around the world. Give him our support and stop those who are so communistic toward the people of the US.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:28 pm |
  97. Harry

    Yes, this is a great idea. We still keep 1500 nukes. After we rain 5 – 6 hundred nukes on some poor nation, we would then just be seeing how high the rubble will fly.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:29 pm |
  98. Rick Denson

    I think that it is a good idea and certainly on the right path. We, the Rusians as well as the Chinese have had far too many nukes and the certain potential destruction of each other and the world was never needed. We shall still have the capability to defend ourselves and our allies as well as have a huge conventional arsenal capable of destroying countries and the Nukes will not totally be elliminated. I can find no credible argument by which significantly reducing the nuber of nukes in this world will not make this a safer world for us all. Only a War monger or demon seed of Satan would argue for continued status quo and the same old insane message of utter nuclear destruction we communicate each day to each other in this world. I say.... it's about freakin time!

    April 7, 2010 at 5:30 pm |
  99. SMSgt John S. Kurz USAF (Ret.)

    The President's idea of a nuclear policy is that of an idealist. I don't believe we should be dealing from a weakened position. Our enemies (supposed & real) are more pragmatic and realistic. He's letting them win in this – we lose!

    April 7, 2010 at 5:32 pm |
  100. warren in ohio

    no nukes are good nukes and make good neighbors

    April 7, 2010 at 5:33 pm |
  101. Roberto from Phoenix AZ

    Jack: President Obama said that his nuclear policy is not to develop new weapons which I think is a good idea, but he never said that he is terminating nuclear weapons research. In engineering there are two phases, research and development, he is terminating the second and not the first phase.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:34 pm |
  102. David in Winston Salem NC

    Our nuclear arsenal has never been a deterrent to developing nuclear weapons, only to using them. The current situation in Iran and North Korea makes me believe that the usage deterrent is draining away rapidly.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:35 pm |
  103. andrew in pinehurst, nc

    I'm dismayed. I agree with Obama that the reduction of nukes is necessary. Although we may reduce the number of nukes, the real deterrent is simply whether our enemy believes that we would use nuke weapons. It doesn't matter whether its one weapon or 1,000 weapons. In the case of Iran, I imagine they do not think we would use a nuke, but they are certain Israel would. We need to keep a good relationship with Israel, for that reason, if no other.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:37 pm |
  104. Sue from Redwood City

    I don't think there is much we can do to stop these crazy nations from developing their own nukes.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:37 pm |
  105. Steven

    It's crazy to think that nuclear weapons is still considered a deterrent. Who really believes even if attacked in the worst way possible that the US would consider a nuclear bomb. What president would we elect that would give the ok to drop a nuclear bomb on innocent people. NONE so lets try everything we can through foreign policy and reduce the number of WMD.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:37 pm |
  106. Judy - California

    It could work in our favor, particularly if it is a small part of a larger plan to secure our nation. My feeling is there more to this than is immediately apparent. The CIA and other covert agencies could be at work as we speak to help carry out the broad strokes. Maybe we wouldn't be in this mess if that had been done by all previous administrations.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:39 pm |
  107. Jesse J Vancouver Canada

    Hi Jack,

    I think the new policy is great... besides it only takes 1 war head to take out a 1000 sq mile radius ... and each missle has about 10 war heads.

    By my calculations you can get rid of all of them and if you really need to keep one.

    Besides no one will ever use nuclear wepons ever again knowing what the end result would be.

    Jesse J
    Vancouver Canada.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:41 pm |
  108. Darwin B Phillips

    Yet another masterful sweep of Justice and Logic, if America is going to lead it must lead by example, have no doubt that President Barack Hussein Obama will use whatever he needs to to keep this Country safe, but he will also seek ways to do what's right !!! I don't believe that many of us listen to those that have never worn the uniform or taken the oath, which is pretty much the entire GOP, much of Congress and the Senate, Veterans know the price of the Freedoms that so many scream about in front of an audience, there is no place for such a destructive weapon as the Nuclear threat on Gods Earth, and intelligent people know that !!!

    April 7, 2010 at 5:43 pm |
  109. Jon

    All Obama wants to do are to weaken American political, economic and military powers, so that Muslim Islamic Radicals or our adversaries can rise to the occassions to challenge America! Well, if that is what you want from Obama then have a nice day for America.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:44 pm |
  110. Jo An

    Yes!! Obama is on the right track....he needs to do more but his thinking is in the right direction.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:45 pm |
  111. Kundry

    In attaining our foreign policy objectives I'd far rather expend a few kilotons of blast force than the blood of any of our citizens. Obama has chosen the welfare of foreigners over Americans, but that's nothing new.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:45 pm |
  112. Scott

    Unfortunately , Obama is proving himself to be a wimp. History will repeat is itself, and wimpy statesman, always fail.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:46 pm |
  113. Ben

    Obama just doesn't understand how the world functions. He is weak on foreign policy. I do agree with lessening Nuclear weapons but only on a world wide level. Obama is only showing his weakness just like he did when he bowed to several world leaders and apologized to the world for the mistakes America has supposedly made. Thanks be to Republicans our nation is currently safe but it won't be for long with Obama and the Dems in office.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:46 pm |
  114. McLuhan

    He's doing what Bush wouldn't do, and that's face NK and Iran head on, just like more troops in afghanistan (Bush Failure) and putting an American terrorist on the kill list! That's action against the terrorists. Many of the bloggers on this story don't understand because Obama isn't convincing us to invade some random country that has nothing to do with the problem.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:46 pm |
  115. Keith from Wisconsin

    A past president who is well reviewed long after he is gone said speak softly and carry a big stick. Obamas policy seems to be aggrivate everyone and give them a big stick.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:46 pm |
  116. Brian

    Republicans are stuck in the 80's and the strong arm Cold War tactics. It worked with Russia, but it hasn't done anything to deter rogue countries like North Korea or Iran. The world has changed and Pres. Obama is administering a new tactic of pushing Iran in a corner with one of it's now biggest allies (Russia).

    Pres. Obama's new nuke policy is a good idea because it helps those who have nuclear weapons look good to the rest of the world by getting on board. But, at the same time, isolates those rogue nations as trouble makers for all, including their allies.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:47 pm |
  117. Rodger Lundell

    The people in Iran that consider the United States a threat to their country and way of life will stop at nothing to counter the threat. Lose of life in protection of their religious belief is acceptable and encouraged. Anything short of regulating their nuclear development is courting desaster and will end with Ahmadinejad exploding the bomb over their adversaries. The only ones listening to the dialogue and rhetoric in Iran are the loyal opposition, but if there was a power change there is no guarantee of a position change on nuclear development; therefore our only hope is a United Nations with an exerted effort to regulate the use of nuclear energy worldwide very soon, time is running out.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:48 pm |

    I guess Joe Biden was right when he was running for President. Obama does not have the experience necessary to be President.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:48 pm |
  119. B

    Leave Iran alone and let them do what they want. If they successfully make a nuke and use it, destroy them.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:49 pm |
  120. Myo Chang

    It is not our weapons that will give us power, but our economic stability. I believe it is a fantastic plan and will commit more funds to something more useful.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:49 pm |
  121. McLuhan

    Obama is saying we're not gonna destroy the entire planet because we have a conflict with one country!

    April 7, 2010 at 5:50 pm |
  122. Tom McGowan

    Good idea? It's the ONLY idea since many years. Non-proliferation promises and threats have been a nerve-wracking dead-end for a long time. This, now, is the USA reaching out and–for the first time–offering a clear and rational incentive to nations to NOT support proliferation: only nations that willfully stand outside of the non-proliferation circle of peace (and/or deliberately threaten us with weapons of mass destruction) need to–for the first time– wonder about or doubt the peaceful attitude of the USA. This is the level of straight-forward clarity that international military and political relations have been long in need of. Thank you, Mr. President.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:50 pm |
  123. ima goodblogger

    Isn't it kind of silly for Obama to say that the USA is going to limit its nuclear weapons use – when there is no guarantee other countries wont – even if they sign the treaty? Its really just a foolish attempt to bring attention to countries like Iran and North Korea not wanting to sign the treaty (which in itself means nothing – I doubt very highly that any country wouldnt retalliate with nukes if it was nuked). I also doubt very highly that the USA or Russia would decline to use the nuclear option in a war if it seemed like the only option to win – treaty or no treaty. We should not forget we were involved in diplomacy with China before World War 2 started and Pearl Harbor. How did that end?

    April 7, 2010 at 5:51 pm |
  124. Robert Dayton

    Obama is an embarrassment to the high office of President of the United States.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:51 pm |
  125. marion/birmingham

    Jack,2012 better get here soon,before we get attacked and Obama has to appoligize for us.Obama's problem is he feels he can reason with Evil,and that puts us all in harms way.

    April 7, 2010 at 5:51 pm |