Obama: No More Nukes? (vote, Iran, enemies, Israel)
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.
Senator Barack Obama will propose on Tuesday setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, saying the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism, aides say.
Mr. Obama, according to details provided by his campaign Monday, also will call for pursuing vigorous diplomatic efforts aimed at a global ban on the development, production and deployment of intermediate-range missiles.
The only problem with that is this:
North Korea's recent nuclear test and Iran's refusal to stop its program to enrich uranium - potentially to weapons grade - highlight the fact that the world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era. Most alarmingly, the likelihood that non-state terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weaponry is increasing. In today's war waged on world order by terrorists, nuclear weapons are the ultimate means of mass devastation. And non-state terrorist groups with nuclear weapons are conceptually outside the bounds of a deterrent strategy and present difficult new security challenges.
Senator Barack Obama will propose on Tuesday setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, saying the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism, aides say.
Mr. Obama, according to details provided by his campaign Monday, also will call for pursuing vigorous diplomatic efforts aimed at a global ban on the development, production and deployment of intermediate-range missiles.
The only problem with that is this:
North Korea's recent nuclear test and Iran's refusal to stop its program to enrich uranium - potentially to weapons grade - highlight the fact that the world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era. Most alarmingly, the likelihood that non-state terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weaponry is increasing. In today's war waged on world order by terrorists, nuclear weapons are the ultimate means of mass devastation. And non-state terrorist groups with nuclear weapons are conceptually outside the bounds of a deterrent strategy and present difficult new security challenges.
Obama isn't STUPID. I suppose you think that by saying this he means that the US should destroy all its' nukes and trust that all the other governments will do the same No of course not, I hope that's not how you read into this?
Obama isn't STUPID. I suppose you think that by saying this he means that the US should destroy all its' nukes and trust that all the other governments will do the same No of course not, I hope that's not how you read into this?
Where did I imply " The US should destroy all of it's nukes"? Please point it out.
What Obama did say is:"saying the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism "
Which I do think is dangerous because the enemies are not going to stop.
His discussion has gotten the support of Henry Kissinger and George Schultz...a couple former Republican Secretaries of states, with quite a bit of experience in how the world works.
They realize that - the idea that the U.S. should be able to have all the nukes they want while trying to restrict the nukes everybody else has, while very appealing to Americans - might not be so appealing to the rest of the world. Especially after we already pulled the trigger and vaporized a couple cities in World War II.
You have to bring something to the table besides "Bring It On". This isn't the playground.
Based on what we know, the US has around 10,000 nukes. Russia has 15 or 16,000. That's the vast majority of the nukes in the world.
The others: UK, 750 nukes. France, 350. China, 130. India, 70-120. Pakistan, 30-80. N. Korea has a couple. 1-10. Israel doesn't confirm or deny that it has nukes, but they probably have around 100.
Point is, the US and Russia could REALLY stand to pare down our stockpiles. Even if you can claim that states need nukes as a deterrent, no one NEEDS 10 or 15,000 of them.
WTF is someone going to do with 10,000+ nukes? You could obliterate the entire human population with half of that. I don't see anything bad that could come from us dropping our number by at least a couple thousand and pressuring the international community to ask Russia to drop back.
Odds of that happening? Almost zero, I'd guess about .0000000000000000000001% chance.
Is there any country with a modest to large military that we couldn't obliterate with 5,000 nukes?
now there is a 100% chance I will never vote for him.
It proves everyone's assumption that he has no experience or knowledge of how the world works.
You know what they say about assuming....it makes an A*S out of you and Me! Experience on how the world works.....uh some things are just common sense. Obviously he has some of that, although you may or may not agree with his opinions, doesn't mean that he's any less knowledgable. I suppose you think the idiot in charge right now, is experienced and knowledgeable
What are you people thinking? We have to be prepared to take the solar system down with us when we die of oil thirst. 10,000 isn't nearly enough. We've got to make sure those undiscovered microbes on Mars go extinct as well.
I somewhat disagree with Obama's statement, but at the same time agree. I believe that strategic nuclear arsenals and the MAD doctrine are a stabilizing force in the world that prevents:
1. Low-grade conflicts from spiraling out of control as happened in WWI.
2. Massive unrestrained, unprovoked, unilateral aggression and occupation of one state against another, as happened in WWII.
That said, a paring down of the nuclear arsenals might be called for. Reducing the US arsenal by 30% as a goodwill gesture, and calling upon Russia to do the same, could demonstrate a commitment to nuclear disarmament without actually impacting our deterrant capability against current threats. It would save on maintenance costs as well.
Also, I am adamadently opposed to tactical nuclear weapons of any kind. In today's world, nuclear weapons are a political tool and their very use negates their peacekeeping ability. Having low-yield warheads only encourages politicians and military planners to believe that they can employ nuclear alternatives on the battlefield. There should be a worldwide prohibition on the detonation of nuclear devices (except for peaceful purposes--such as future spaceflight or extraterrestrial applications) of any kind and it should be backed by the threat from the strategic nuclear forces of nuclear-armed nations.
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.
I suppose you think that by saying this he means that the US should destroy all its' nukes and trust that all the other governments will do the same
No of course not, I hope that's not how you read into this?
