start treaty and nuclear disarmament
Our supreme closer drops his shorts and many repubs went right along with it.
Who is safer without nukes? Not the U.S. that's for sure. If I understand correctly we are giving up missle defense too.
Obama said the treaty was necessary in order reach the end goal of nuclear elimination.
Maybe we can go back to trench warefare one day, instead of simply avoiding all out world war through overwhelming might.
Just another kick in the teeth courtesy of the regime.
You got that right cayman. Missile defense and high technology are our only defense. We would lose a war without far superior weapons and the will and knowledge by the rest of the world that we will use them for any attack.
Originally Posted by cool-in-cayman
Obama has already given that up. What a traitor. Now he is given up on our superior weapons and technology. This four years of a traitor as President may do us irretrievable damage that we may never recover from and pay the price in the not to distant future. Thank you, thank you very much.
"Trump's victory may not be your victory but his defeat will be your defeat"
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution."
Seems pretty simple. I can't figure this guy out, he is either naive in the extreme, purposely trying to dismantle the country or just plain stupid. Right now stupid has the upper hand.
Glennac..We would lose a war without far superior weapons and the will and knowledge by the rest of the world that we will use them for any attack.
Not even sure why you even backed up from when you had tens of thousands of nukes. Hell you had so many you could have had a sale.
Now that you will only end up with a couple of thousand, can anyone tell me what you could not blow up as compared to having 5000 of them?
Being able to destroy the world a hundred times over is over-kill, but that's not really what we are talking about here. Reduction is not Obama's stated goal, and he's agreed to some sort of abandonment of missle defense. He's swimming with sharks and he's in way over his head.
Originally Posted by printer2