Obama: Al-Qaida would use nuclear weapons if it could

Extremist views are such a bore.

What exactly is extremist about wanting to take out the nuclear facilities of an Islamic fundamentalist regime that exports terrorism? I'd call it common sense.

"I look forward to Iran's nuclear facilities to being leveled so I don't have think about this pathetic country anymore"

Unfortunately, your counterparts on the other extremity probably want to do the same to you and your country.

Extremist views are such a bore.

Iran's leadership never said that they would remove the Jewish state from the earth; that's a completely idiotic mistranslation from Farsi, and you know it.

No need to scrutinize the translation here. Iran is already waging a proxy war to remove the Jewish state through terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, and you know it.

Iran is a signatory to the NNPT (unlike Israel), and therefore must submit to its nuclear program being inspected consistently by the IAEA.

Iran violated the NNPT when it constructed a secret enrichment facility in a mountain without the knowledge of the IAEA. Iran has proven itself untrustworthy, so it being a signatory to the NNPT is meaningless.

So far, there has been zero reporting of any nuclear materials gone missing, or enrichment beyond what is necessary to fuel a power plant.

If the IAEA doesn't even know what Iran is and isn't doing, what makes you so sure? Iran has already acquired enough uranium to make nuclear bombs and purchased centrifuges with enrichment capabilities above that necessary for producing power.

The Iranian leadership may be many things, but it is not stupid. Iran hasn't initiated a war in two hundred years.

Silly argument. Its past history doesn't predict its future. The Islamic fundie leadership of Iran could initiate a war tomorrow for all anyone knows. And yes, they are stupid.

They understand that any military action against Israel will result its being bombed out of existence by the US.

Ah, to be the greatest martyrs for Allah in world history. I don't think they could pass up the opportunity. Exactly why Islamic nations must never be allowed to have nukes.

Even if they are planning to develop a bomb (which is still very doubtful), who can blame them, after the magnificent object lesson the US gave Iran and the world by invading a nation which did not have a nuclear deterrent, that nation having been Iraq?

Iran's nuclear program and desire to develop nukes dates long before the Iraq war. A Q Khan made visits to Iran back in the 1980's. But why Iran wants them is totally irrelevant.

I look forward to Iran's nuclear facilities to being leveled so I don't have think about this pathetic country anymore.

Memo to those using this forum to shout "Bomb Iran!": the "big lie" technique won't work any more, Obama - get over it!

Iran's leadership never said that they would remove the Jewish state from the earth; that's a completely idiotic mistranslation from Farsi, and you know it.

Iran is a signatory to the NNPT (unlike Israel), and therefore must submit to its nuclear program being inspected consistently by the IAEA.

So far, there has been zero reporting of any nuclear materials gone missing, or enrichment beyond what is necessary to fuel a power plant.

The Iranian leadership may be many things, but it is not stupid. Iran hasn't initiated a war in two hundred years.

They understand that any military action against Israel will result its being bombed out of existence by the US.

Even if they are planning to develop a bomb (which is still very doubtful), who can blame them, after the magnificent object lesson the US gave Iran and the world by invading a nation which did not have a nuclear deterrent, that nation having been Iraq?

Obama, a lie yesterday is still a lie today and will still be a lie tomorrow if you start another war.

He's right a nuke in a metropolitan area would be Osama and Cos. dream come true.

"I thought you said Bush was going to attack Iran. Now it's been pushed to Obama's schedule?"

I thought it was the hated Israel?

The conspiracies move too quick for me top keep up with them....

Would that mean we all go back to 1974 and have to join Dharma?

Sabiwabi: And now that Obama and friends are planning to attack Iran

I thought you said Bush was going to attack Iran. Now it's been pushed to Obama's schedule? Your timetables are about as reliable as the local train in a snow storm.

Al Qaeda is very real and very obsessed with killing innocent people.

Indeed, and they always seem to commit their dirty deeds in or from countries that the US happens to want to attack. And now that Obama and friends are planning to attack Iran because of its alleged nuclear weapons program, presto Al Qaida is "in the process of trying to secure nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, and would have no compunction at using them".

So far, the only group to have ever shown a lack of compunction to use nuclear weapons has been the US.

"He has provided the enemy with a goal, and stated targets that would be the best bang for their buck...Who's side are you really on Obama???"

Nice attempt to try and put yet another implausible scenario at Obama's feet. Well, actually, no, not a very nice attempt at all. Lame, to be honest.

Anyone who believes terrorist organizations never had an inkling of the possibilities or consequences nuking New York would bring before Obama mentioned it at the summit are woefully naive. Proof abundant, terrorists have already targeted New York. Twice. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to expect they've already dreamt of upping the ante with a nuclear strike of some sort.

USA wouls use nulcear weapons if it could. Oh wait, it already did!

The 'D' and 'S' are so close on the keyboard early in the morning.

Perhaps he is stating what he hopes should be obvious to certain countries which, his military advisers think, may not have noticed 'properly'.

So Obama says that Al-Qaida would use nukes if it acquired them? Isn't that a case of stating the obvious???

Sharky1: Not a very well thought out statement. He has provided the enemy with a goal, and stated targets that would be the best bang for their buck...Who's side are you really on Obama???

My thoughts exactly. Not wanting to go " off topic" here, but some famous wars have been brought on by running scenarios just like this.

Al Qaeda is very real and very obsessed with killing innocent people.

The thing that really blows my mind about all this is, when we talk about "reducing nuclear arsenals," what exactly are we doing with the weapons? Right now there are an estimated 9,400 active and reserve nuclear weapons in the US. Even if we "got rid of" all but 1,500, you don't just get rid of nuclear material. Sure, we can't blow each other to bits with it anymore, but it has to go somewhere. Are we just sticking it in the ground and pretending it doesn't exist anymore, like all our other garbage, or what?

South Africa a moral leader? The country with the weakest strategic reason to develop nuclear arms should instead apologize to the world for having taken part at all. That would put them on the right side of the line and put the right pressure on the main culprits.

HesKun,

Whether you believe there is an Al Qaeda or not doesn't matter. The fact is that there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Muslims who will kill you at the drop of a hat if you fail to submit to their ideology. Be sure of that.

SushiSake3: this will be a big suitcase. The firing mechanism is not that simple and you can't really try that mechanism without any intelligent agency noticing it. A dirty bomb is the more likely scenario.

Not a very well thought out statement. He has provided the enemy with a goal, and stated targets that would be the best bang for their buck...Who's side are you really on Obama???

There's talk that the Al Qaida boys want to nuke a World Cup match or two. Read in The Mail. Any nuclear terrorists near me in Jo'burg? They'll get smashed! Simple as that.

Nuclear weapons are here to stay. When the US successfully weaponizes space, it's all over for the bad guy states. Unless one of them sets off a suitcase nuke in a subway.

Buncha nonsense here- all this hoopla about nuclear weapons. Fact is you don't need them anymore- conventional weapons are more than adequate- ala cluster bombs, bunker busters, various equipped flying drones etc. The US has all but surpassed nuclear technology for more effective weapons- without the hangups ! It's common knowledge that operation Iraqi freedom eventually used ten times more firepower than a single atomic bomb- they just didn't call it that !

It was bad enough when the Soviets and US squared off with nukes at the ready. Our generation grew up living in fear of the bomb. And it was a very real fear.

Now we have grown beyond that. It is time we worked to rid the world of nuclear weapons. This has to happen. Only a tiny fraction of the weapons in even India or Pakistan could radically change life on earth if used. It is moronic for humanity to keep such weapons in place.

Sooner or later we have to think about our global collective security, that being the preservation of humanity. This means having policies that assure prosperity and security for everyone. At least reducing the number of weapons is a start. But we have to solve the economic issues first to truly reduce weapons.

As for terrorists with nukes. This simply must not happen. If it does, the world will sink into a new dark age of repressive, paranoid states and legions of fearful people hoping for protection those states cannot really provide. If you think the Bush years were dark, imagine the world post a nuclear terror attack. We cannot allow this to ever happen.

"Loose nuclear material” conjures up a picture of cornflakes on the kitchen floor. Any uncontrolled nuclear material would surely come from Russia and the resulting detonation would occur in London.

USA wouls use nulcear weapons if it could. Oh wait, it already did!

This sounds horrible to Americans but like music to the ears for those who hate it. Bad statement.

dammit,

"Not like he's just as blinkered and American-soil obsessed as his predecessor then."

Obama was elected primarily to be American-soil obsessed. He's the American president, not the Canadian, Mongolian, or Turkish one. That you would expect him, or any other leader of a nation to place the security of another nation above his or her own is baffling.

As you shake your fist with disdain at the American Imperialist Dogs™, it seems to have escaped you that the U.S. is also separately seeking with Russia to make unprecedented cuts in its nuclear stockpile. Sure, it's not everything, but it's certainly a step in the right direction.

Obama: "If there was ever a detonation in New York City, or London, or Johannesburg..."

“The single biggest threat to U.S. security"

Right. Not like he's just as blinkered and American-soil obsessed as his predecessor then. Why the hell is there an international nuclear security summit that's focusing on US protection, US rights, US interests, US opinions, US egoism, etc.?