I Am Puzzled

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I am puzzled. What is the appropriate response for an American president if a nation uses nuclear weapons on one of our allies. Every American president since Harry Truman has affirmed our alliance with Israel as have all three remaining candidates for president.

[Diamond Dog]

1. A large-scale conventional assault.

You never stoop below your principles.

What is the appropriate response for an American President if an ally uses a nuclear weapon on a nation?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Easy. They Wouldn't Be An Ally Anymore With Some Very Narrow Exceptions

~

[Diamond Dog]

5. Actually, the point is moot regardless.

Israel has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the Middle East combined. No action on our part required.

[0007]

3. Jesus said turn the other cheek.

We're all gonna die anyway. WTF!!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Then Why Even Have A Military

~

[Coexist]

6. is your avatar really MLK?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. What Would Dr. King Do If A Nation Used Nuclear Weapons On One Of Our Allies?

He was a deeply spiritual man committed to non violence but he realized the need for force...It was the force of the U.S. government that ultimately forced those not predisposed to granting African Americans their rights to grant them those rights...

[Coexist]

11. I don't see him nuking them, sorry.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. I Can't Speak For Dr. King

I suspect Dr. King wouldn't want to be president because he wouldn't want to make that decision just as I wouldn't want to be on a jury where the death penalty was an option because I don't believe the government should put people to death...

[WinkyDink]

14. The Constitution says we're not a theocracy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I Also Don't See The Efficacy Of An Isolated Quote, Even From Jesus

Most Christians, including the Roman Catholic church, allow the need for force when circumstances justify it...

Christ also said " no greater love than that to lay down your life for another man."

[WinkyDink]

12. It would be a little late for ground troops.

[CTyankee]

7. Historically, we have always defended our allies. Thankfully, we have not had to

face a nuclear attack on an ally because we had nukes and until recently, no other country (besides the USSR) did. It is now a post-post Cold War situation.

Obama had a good response. He emphasized defense of our ally, Israel, but also emphasized the importance of diplomacy and negotiation with our adversaries.

Israel is our ally in the ME. Whatever differences we here at DU have with the current government of Israel won't change that basic fact. The important point is that we need a president who can talk to other leaders intelligently and purposefully in a way that serves our national interest while not rattling sabres and pounding our chests...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Of Course Diplomacy Should Be The First Resort

In my scenario a nation has already used nuclear weapons on one of our allies...

[CTyankee]

28. Yes, I realize that. I was just filling in the picture. I think this issue has been

presented w/o all of the ramifications leading up to such a situation and that is just too oversimplifying a difficult issue.

I actually worry more about "loose nukes," a frightening scenario where there are no diplomatic avenues available. That scares the bejesus out of me...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. Here's The Real Danger

Let me preface my remarks by saying its a highly unrealistic scenario...

Israel is roughly the size of New Jersey...Six nuclear bombs of the same capacity as the one ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would end Israel as a nation... The Israelis' have two hundred to four hundred nuclear weapons... In hostilites with a nuclear Iran they would be put in a "use them or lose them" position... Nuclear armed nations on a hair-trigger in the M E are not a good thing...

If I was the president (sic) I would say the United States would react forcefully to a nuclear attack on Israel with every weapon at its disposal and leave it at that... That was basically our response if Saddam used his (non-existent) chemical weapons on our troops in Gulf War l and ll...

[CTyankee]

33. As president, yes, I agree, that is what you say. But if we are talking about

the primary candidates' statements, then we would expect some elaboration, which both candidates did to some extent. HRC was a bit more blunt, tho.

Last summer, when I was laid up due to several surgeries, I read the old book, "The Missile Crisis," written in the mid 60s by noted journalist Elie Abel. It was fascinating to read the way JFK handled what was the closest we ever came in the Cold War to a nuclear showdown. Reading it, I was so glad that GWB hadn't had that situation! JFK did a masterly job of crafting just the right response to the Soviet Union, consulted with the best minds he could find, used a moderate military option for starters (blockade)and was heavy on the diplomacy. It was an astonishing feat. And from a president who had served maybe one six year term as a Senator. It showed me that just government experience alone is not as important as knowing the way things work in the world. I think both HRC and Obama have that also...

[kentuck]

8. What if that ally is Saudi Arabia?

Is that the umbrella that Hillary is talking about?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. If A Nation Nuked Saudi Arabia It Would Be Incumbent On An American President To React Forcefully

They are our ally regardless of how you or me feel about many of their reactionary policies...

[Smarmie Doofus]

15. What if they, umm... *provoke* an attack? nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Don't You Think A Nation Would Have To Do A Lot To Provoke A Nuclear Attack?

~

[Smarmie Doofus]

32. Provocation ( like beauty) is often in the eye of the beholder.

Should we nuke Iran if the Saudi's.. I don't know ... closed off access to the Suez canal threatening 70,000,000 Iranians with starvation?

Say, hypotheitically, the Saudi's only motivation was the heretical Shia Iranians deserved to die of starvation ( 'cause they read the Quran that way; "Allah demands it".)

Shia Iran responds with say.... lets phrase it right... "limited, tactical surgical nuclear airstrikes against Saudi military targets".... the effect of which is to save it's 70 million from starvation.

The US should then nuke Iran?

[mckeown1128]

13. actually her umbrella applies to ANY middle east county..

I just heard on Faux News a high ranking Clinton spokesman say yes when asked if it applies to Saudia Arabia or Dubai

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5615903

[WinkyDink]

16. Oh, funny. Like any other nation besides Israel has been targeted there.

[kentuck]

29. Hillary said she would expand the umbrella beyond Israel.

What did she mean?

[chascarrillo]

17. What would Dr King do?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. See Post Eighteen

I would think if a person refuses to use force under any circumstance and he or she aspires to be a leader of any nation it is incumbent upon him or her to make the electorate aware of that position...

[Bonobo]

20. It was the WAY she said it. She sounded bellicose.

There is something called diplomacy. She shows no sign of holding anything like a diplomatic stance towards Iran. THAT is what has ME troubled by her statement, not the content of it which, as you said, is a fairly consistent stand among all US leaders.

[Smith_3]

21. Well, the point is not to paint the devil on the wall.

One can come up with lots of unlikely scenarios, some of which would leed to the destruction of the human race. One should rather ask, what can we do to prevent such an event, instead of going around boasting that one is prepared to "obliviate" another country.

How would the USA respond if China nuked Europe? How if India nuked Pakistan? Lot's of people "could" do lots of things, if they insisted.

The point is not that the USA should not react in some way, the point is that Hillary's statements were a downright threat that is completely unnecessary regarding the current situation in the Middle East.

[QC]

23. Clinton is a girl, and girls are supposed to be sugar & spice & everything nice.

Get with the program!

[Diamond Dog]

24. HO NOEZ TEH SEXISM!!!11!

Pa-fucking-thetic.

[QC]

27. Welcome to DU!

I can tell you are really going to elevate the intellectual tone of the place! :toast:

[grantcart]

25. It s not the point

In a campaign the appropriate response is to say something like this


I consider an attack on ____________________ to be very serious to the vital interests of the United States. As President I will take swift and complrehensive action.


When asked about thermonuclear warfare.


I refuse to comment directly on any specific strategy or tactic but I am taking nothing off the table.



Hillary Clinton has dramatically escalated the rhetoric.

[cali]

30. it's the language and saber rattling

she could have just quietly said that all options would be on the table. She chose to use the language she used and to threaten to "obliterate" Iran. Stupid really.

[Smarmie Doofus]

34. I'd wager she made a conscious effort to get the word "obliterate"...

in the headlines before the PA vote since she answered virtually the same question in a less inflammatory way in the debate.

It got lost in the rest of the post-debate uproar and analysis. Leaving her with the task of upping the intensity of the language.

Her braintrust has settled on the "I'm tougher than Obama" meta-message ... at least for now... and that's what she was after with 'obliterate'.