Previous post
Not that this comes as any kind of surprise, but it’s disturbing nonetheless.
Obama has rejected the Pentagon’s first draft of the “nuclear posture review” as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.
Those options include:
• Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.
• Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.
• Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.
The review is due to be completed by the end of this year, and European officials say the outcome is not yet clear. But one official said: “Obama is now driving this process. He is saying these are the president’s weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role.”
Um… the president’s weapons?! No, Obama, they are not your personal weapons. They are the nuclear arsenal of the United States of America, owned by the taxpayers. You may have the authority to use them or get rid of them, but they are not your weapons. I think that may be the most outrageous part of all of this. It’s completely expected that Obama wants to get slash our nuclear arsenal, but what’s insane is that he sees them as his.
And of course, this just shows an appalling amount of naivete possessd by the president. Sure, it’d be great if the entire world got rid of all their nukes. Let’s all form a human chain around the world with every single person holding someone’s hand all at the same time and sing Kumbaya while we’re at it. The thing is, Obama may cut back on our nuclear arsenal, but he’s doing so while rogue nations like Russia, Iran, and North Korea are building their nuclear arsenals up. They’re not about to suddenly stop just because Obama’s stupid enough to weaken the United States. No, I’d imagine they’re thrilled. They probably can’t believe their luck.
This is a serious blow not only to our national defense, but also to our credibility overseas on national defense and foreign policy. What kind of authority would a weaker U.S. have with terrorist nations like North Korea? The answer is very little, and Obama is either too stupid to figure that out… or he’s committing the worst kind of treason.
BobV says: A reduction in our arsenal makes sense, especially of our older weapons designed only to hit large targets (like cities in the USSR).
But as a step towards eliminating all of our nukes, that’s just ridiculous.
Someone needs to remind him that the president only gets to use that fancy nuclear bunker they have set up for him while president, once he’s out (3 more years or so) he’ll be on his own, with the common people, if we ever get in to a fight. Keep that in mind.
Bob please tell my why reducing our weapons makes sense to you? the older weapons are kept up by the Air Force. They are maintained and is better shape than most people’s cars.
Have you ever heard of an area denial weapon? I had access to plans that were well old when I was stationed in Germany. They were way out of date from the cold war but the use of nukes to deny the Russians fast approach areas is well known. The Russians used the same tactice in WWII when they were getting the snot kicked out of them back then. Not with nukes but with other weapons. Mostly chemical.
Can you show me a weapon of any kind that was designed to hit only cities? I grew up in the Army and served 4 years as an Infantryman. After 2 wars I think I can count myself as an expert in conventional tactics. I have never heard of a weapon that was ever designed to hit only cities. Please enlighten me.
Now back to the topic at hand. “President’s weapons”????? WTF?? I thought Urkel was afraid of weapons and now he owns the most powerful weapons known to man? Cassy you said it right they are weapons bought and paid for by the American people. But this is just another example of the arrogance of Urkel.
BobV says: Steffen: because during the cold war we kind of went overboard on building nukes, and they are expensive to maintain.
When go from being able to destroy the world 14 times over, to only being able to destroy it 3 or 4 times over I wouldn’t really call that a weakness.
Right now we have about 5,000 active warheads, I think with 1,000 we would still be feared. I mean, do you really think Kim jon il will think “5,000 that’s way to many to screw with the US, but if they only had a paltry 1,000 then yeah I could totally take them on”. We’ll still have the capability to reduce the world to ashes on our own, which is nice, but also shave a few bucks from the budget (we aren’t exactly rolling in the dough right now).
Justin says: I sort of agree with BobV here. We have more nuclear weapons than we could ever conceivably need. No doubt Obama would take it too far though.
And the other parts of his plan are pure stupidity. Why would we want to keep our weapons up to date technologically? That’s just silly!
A simple question. A person considers breaking in to your appartment. He’s casing the place looking for a weakness, looking for patterns of when no one is home. But he see’s someting he doesn’t like. He see’s you carring a weapon. He decides to look at a different house. Is this bad? Same concept different weapons.
A different situation:
You are walking to your car. Soem slimeball is watching you close. He saw you hit the ATM and knows you have cash on you. you reach behind you to scratch your back and he see’s your holstered weapon. He backs off to look for an easier target.
Now both situations happen everyday. Not the same scale of the topis at hand but the exact same concept. Human reactions are the same no matter the weapons.
Now 5000 weapons is a lot but you failed to break down the size of the weapons. Did you know that there are nukes for 105mm cannons? hmmmmm How many ICBM’s to we posess? How amny nukes above say 0.5 megatons?
5000 seems like alot but when you break down the numbers and you’ll see that 5000 is not as many as you might think.
Yes we could destroy the world as we know it. But we haven’t have we. I would suggest reading Reagan’s speaches on the subject.
6 Comments