Sawz sez:

For instance, I think the new treaty and ban on retaliating with nukes on countries that are in compliance and have no nukes is a good thing.

It kicks the legs out from any arguments about "if the US has nukes, we must have nukes for self protection". It also gives fair warning to North Korea and Iran that we WILL nuke them because they are not in compliance.

Reasonable statement, until you get to the last sentence!

That sentence, as written is false. What that policy statement says is purely the negative, that non-nuclear states are safe from US nuclear devices, and that nuclear states who declare their status and agree to international norms (and stick with them) are safe from US nuclear devices.

It does not say that "we WILL nuke them because they are not in compliance." It is more guarded than that, but leaves the nuclear option on the table. Is that a threat? You betchum! But much more tentative than the absolute way Sawz stated it. More maneuvering room for diplomacy, which is a damn good thing.

Dave Oesterreich