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.
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.
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.
Thankfully he has only ten months remaining and will not be able to complete his goals of destroying the nation completely. God knows he did alot of damage, but I think that we can recover. The nation will remember Obama for thirty years, just as they did Carter.
Obama, like Carter, will become an embarrassment in US history and a lesson to all of us what weak leadership and despair can cause.
Dont see too big a deal with this. How many does 1 country really need?
Getting rid of 80% means we would still have thousands. I'm pretty sure that would get the job done if needed.
Actually, it's a big deal because the nukes don't always work. They need maintenance, downtime, overhaul, etc..etc....Obama is just making the same mistakes all liberals make about weapons. During the 1920's the Liberals pushed the false idea about "disarming" every nation so there would be no more wars...that did not work out too well...
Thankfully he has only ten months remaining and will not be able to complete his goals of destroying the nation completely. God knows he did alot of damage, but I think that we can recover. The nation will remember Obama for thirty years, just as they did Carter.
Obama, like Carter, will become an embarrassment in US history and a lesson to all of us what weak leadership and despair can cause.
Actually, it's a big deal because the nukes don't always work. They need maintenance, downtime, overhaul, etc..etc....Obama is just making the same mistakes all liberals make about weapons. During the 1920's the Liberals pushed the false idea about "disarming" every nation so there would be no more wars...that did not work out too well...
Because the liberals, led by FDR, pushed us into one.
Actually, it's a big deal because the nukes don't always work. They need maintenance, downtime, overhaul, etc..etc....Obama is just making the same mistakes all liberals make about weapons. During the 1920's the Liberals pushed the false idea about "disarming" every nation so there would be no more wars...that did not work out too well...
Like SecDef Dick Cheney pushed the "peace dividend" after the collapse of the Soviet Union as justification for downsizing our Armed Forces?
Just empty, symbolic pandering to his so-called anti-war constituents. They'll eat it up knowing its nonsense, just like they are now okay with Gitmo, drones, assinations, indefinite dentions.....
where are we going to store the waste now that yucca mountain is now closed and sealed off?
I mean we may as well is to burn it up in our Nuclear Reactors as a MOX fuel mix to create some power from it... I mean that is all all it is good for if we want to get rid of it and also as a by product get some cheap power to out of it..
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.
