I read this this morning…
Republicans were particularly incensed about Obama’s belief that the U.S. could “absorb” another terrorist attack on American soil, something Obama said he is doing everything he can to prevent that happening.
I’m not sure why, but the feeling I got was the same one I had when I read this back in 1997…
Bell said the press had incorrectly indicated that the PDD “still allows” the United States to launch nuclear weapons upon receiving warning of an attack. Bell emphasized that “there is no change in this PDD with respect to U.S. policy on launch on warning and that policy is that we do not, not rely on it.” In fact, Bell said “in this PDD we direct our military forces to continue to posture themselves in such a way as to not rely on launch on warning—to be able to absorb a nuclear strike and still have enough force surviving to constitute credible deterrence.”
Bell pointed out that while the United States has always had the “technical capability” to implement a policy of launch on warning, it has chosen not to do so. “Our policy is to confirm that we are under nuclear attack with actual detonations before retaliating,” he said.
This was a quote from the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Doctrine with Clinton’s implemented changes to the Launch On Warning protocol. I guess the feeling I felt was a little sickness with a heaping helping of rage at the fact that I felt we had just been sold out in the event of a nuclear war. In this case, all our enemies had to do was launch everything they had and effectively blanket the continent. Once there were confirmed detonations, the war in essence would be over. There would not have been enough left to do the job.
Under the changes, the ability to respond was effectively taken out of the hands of the captains of nuclear subs. their protocol for maing the decision themselves was revoked. Unless they got the order directly from the president, they could not fire.
In somewhat of the same light, this statement, made out loud and published, is the equivalent of saying to the Islamofascists, “Go ahead and attack, we won’t hurt you.”
I guess it also depends on what exactly Obama means by ‘absorbing’ an attack. Just how far would the enemy have to go before a response was warranted?
Not sure there is a tie-in here. Just basically airing my own feelings and thoughts on that rotten statement.
I don’t understand the anger. America was able to absorb 9/11 through the courage, heroism, and patriotism of our spirit.
Why is this now a bad thing?
We don’t want to absorb another attack. If read in context, there is more of a desire to hold back a response than there is to actually respond. The America I remember would give a very strong response when attacked. Look at Pearl Harbor. We absorbed what we had to. We sent the rest back to the Japanese. 9/11? Same thing with the Taliban. The only thing we are responsible for absorbing if we are attacked is the shock and reality of the situation and the resolution to do something about it.
Kermitt, I agree with you completely. So does the President. We’re all 100% on the same side on this one.
Not sure on that one. Something tells me to watch for that word ‘context’ again.