Obama to reduce U.S. nuclear weapons 80% - no reductions for other nations mentioned
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Y'all do know that the missiles they are talking about have about 10 to 20 warheads per missile?
Way to many nukes, and if it saves money, I'm all for it. The Russians stockpile is aged beyond belief, likely they won't work. Our missile shields will work well.
Would those missile shields be the ones that Obama dealt away some time ago?
1. Really? Have any stats to prove that?
2. What's Behind Bush's Nuclear Cuts? | Arms Control Association I guess Bush and the Republicans did also. That many nukes is a cold war relic. It's a waste of money. There'll still be plenty to nuke everyone as it is. I'm not sure if anyone told you but the cold war was a long time ago.
It is one thing to make cuts that have corresponding verifiable cuts with opposition countries. Obama is proposing these cuts for the US alone.
News from The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NUCLEAR_WEAPONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=D EFAULT - broken link)
US weighing steep nuclear arms cuts
By ROBERT BURNS
AP National Security Writer
Feb 14, 5:51 PM EST
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.
Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama's 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.
No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to: 1,000 to 1,100; 700 to 800, and 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.
The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.
This is what is called unilateral disarmament. This guy's primary responsibility is to be commander-in-chief. He's supposed to protect this nation, not leave it exposed.
There is a certain irony in this proposal. Just last week Obama justified his flip flop on Super Pacs on the grounds that he would not unilateraaly disarm in his campaign for re-election. But unilaterally disarming the country? Not a problem.
Long as you have a few nukes that are well maintained...and a deadly accurate delivery system - you should be okay - Really - do you NEED - fifty guns in the house...or will one good weapon do? NUKES are a deterent...after having them for all these decades - we still have not had a nuclear war...goes to show you that humanities instinct to survive is stronger than foolish ego and pride...
We could get rid of 90% of the nukes and still be a terrifying advesary if neccesary..Maybe useing nukes as a threat is a dated thing - Iran is about 50 years behind - they are like some primatives that want a shot gun in the house because they figured out that they will not be respected...carrying a spear..Respect is not about threat - fear or coersion - It is about honor...America would have no worries internationally if they behaved with more honor...If they kept the high moral ground and set an example - At one time America was the "light of the world" - now it seems that the nation has become just like everybody else - dishonest.
This is hilarious. How many nukes do we need? Once the world's destroyed, the other 1000 nukes you wingnuts are whinning about wont be needed. Kind of hard to wipe out humanity twice.
Next contrived outrage at Obama thread please.
That's not the point!!!
There are some real nut jobs who might not mind taking a hit if they think that they can land us a bigger one!!
Anyone who would do such a thing is not rational anyway!! But they do understand THE BIG STICK! And even evil nut cases don't want to die!
Would those missile shields be the ones that Obama dealt away some time ago?
He did away with the ones in Europe, not the states
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
