Results 1 to 13 of 34
Thread: Reduce U.S. Nuclear Arsenal
02-15-2012, 02:19 PM #1
Reduce U.S. Nuclear Arsenal
This is some really scary stuff.
The White House and Pentagon are considering several proposals that would deeply cut the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons, potentially to as low as 300 warheads under one such plan, according to a U.S. official.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...004788290.htmlIf a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what will never be. (Thomas Jefferson 1816)
02-15-2012, 02:54 PM #2
This provides a diversion from the economy and it creates more chaos that empowers a dictatorial POTUS.
This is just like Bill Clinton shooting 78 very expensive Tomahawk cruise missles at aspirin factories in the desert to divert attention from Fornigate. The side benefit was, it left us dangerously short of missles, which was a principle reason why the first Gulf War was postponed until the following year--we needed time to build enough missles to replace those Clinton shot like so many firecrackers.
As long as Obama keeps doing all this highly controversial stuff he knows will grab headlines and drive conservatives crazy, it keeps the economy off the radar, except days like today when he admitted his gross incompetence by saying again he never realized just how bad the economy was. Admitted he is an idiot. Now, he's putting our national security at risk for no good reason other than his consolidation of power.
02-15-2012, 02:58 PM #3Removed by Admin- No Return
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
One wonders what it costs to maintain thousands of bombs we will never use.
02-15-2012, 03:00 PM #4
What was the cost of the Cold War, which those same bombs never had to be dropped? That's the price of freedom. Take them away and its gun control just on a national level.
02-15-2012, 03:06 PM #5Removed by Admin- No Return
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
That's like saying that a mugger wouldn't mug a guy with 5 handguns strapped to his side but he would mug a guy who was holding a single gun in his hand.
02-15-2012, 03:18 PM #6
Tell me this: what in the world does reducing our nukes, while nobody else is reducing theirs and Iran and N. Korea are advancing their nuke programs, do you see as important at this moment for our country and with this economy? It is Obama's way of diverting attention from his self admitted incompetence in handling the economy while practicing gun control at the national level.
This is insane and proves he is a traitor who should be arrested.
You cannot deter the nuke threat of others with just one nuke. You need a bunch of them spread out all over the world in subs, planes, missles, etc. and you need to maintain and rotate your stockpile. Three hundred nukes puts us where the Red Chinese are but they are building their stockpiles.
02-15-2012, 03:31 PM #7Removed by Admin- No Return
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
You do realize that the number being tossed about (300) is for deployed nukes, right? As in- Nuclear bombs that are on a plane in a sub or in a silo with a big red button on them that sets them off at a moment's notice.
At present we have about 1500 of these hot potatoes deployed around the world but we have 8,000 to 9,000 sitting in warehouses where the detonators and the nuclear cores are separated to make them less dangerous/costly.
Obama is suggesting dropping the number of deployed, ready to fire nukes to 300. I have seen zero articles saying that we're planning on reducing the 9k we have on shelves.
How many simultaneous nuclear wars could we get into with 300 nukes? 20? 30?
You do remember why the cold war ended, right? The soviets found that their military complex was draining too much money and they were going bankrupt. Since I love America and want us to survive, I choose to learn from their mistakes.
02-15-2012, 04:26 PM #8
the more important message NOBAMA is sending is we capitulate.
Nobama is purposely making America weaker, he WILL further this disarmament with the U.N. small arms treaty, and then he WILL come after the Second Amendment.GOVERNMENT
The only parasite dumb enough to kill it's host
02-15-2012, 04:56 PM #9
I personally think the 300 number is trial ballon and a distraction by the Obama regime, and I think if we stick with the numbers that the treaty has us currently agreeing to is OK with me. Keeping what we have already is sharply cheaper than the price to originally manufacture the weapons and how much does it actually cost to dispose of them versus keep them in our stockpiles? Didn't find that yet.
02-15-2012, 04:59 PM #10
As BAC aptly pointed out, how dang MANY nukes do we or anyone else need. Three or four nukes could level our country. Not to metion the radiation poison that would be carried by winds, killing about anything left that wasn't vaporized in the blasts.
02-15-2012, 06:44 PM #11I draw all my schematics in crayon now. If they cannot always be correct, they can at least be colorful.
Service calls submitted after 3PM will be posted the next business day.
I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.
I am not in business to make money from other people so that I can afford to work for you for free.
If the fall is over, mmmm let's say, 6 feet or so,.. I do not 'bounce' very well.
02-15-2012, 06:52 PM #12
The point in having more Nukes is to create a mind set that say's to all our enemies "don't even think of aligning yourselves to launch multiple and collaborative attacks because we can hit you three times for every one of yours." Russia gave up when Regan said they were moving forward with Star Wars. Russia knew they could not compete with that....financially or technologically.
And, it would take more than 3-4 nukes to "level our country", be serious here. All the radiation is another matter. If the crazies of the world were to launch a Nuke attack it is the common man that dies. They will live in their protective hideaways, but surely suffer their consequences in their mind for what the have done; but only if they have a grain of sands worth of conscience. Somehow I think they would only regret that they no longer have the sheep to heard anymore.
Last edited by Gib's Son; 02-15-2012 at 07:28 PM.If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what will never be. (Thomas Jefferson 1816)
02-15-2012, 07:09 PM #13