Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

#52
#52
volfanjustin said:
Now is not the time to start disarming, with North Korea having a nuke and there being an arms race in the Middle East. Russia is selling sotckpiles of weapons to Venezuela, that does not sound like a country that has interest in peace. If we continue down this path with thie regime we will be fighting with spit balls.

Nuclear weapons are one hell of a deterent.
Click to expand...

We are not 'starting' to disarm our nuclear weapons. We are continuing arms reductions we started in 1991 with START 1. There is no reason to keep 5000 nukes fully assembled and ready to go.
 
#53
#53
lumberjack4 said:
We have disarmed somewhat under the old treaty. Russia has 'lost' theirs.
Click to expand...

We've dismantled a fair amount, really. I don't think that it's fair to say Russia has 'lost' theirs. I'm not privy to the intelligence, but we inspect them and they inspect us.
 
#54
#54
TennTradition said:
We are not 'starting' to disarm our nuclear weapons. We are continuing arms reductions we started in 1991 with START 1. There is no reason to keep 5000 nukes fully assembled and ready to go.
Click to expand...

It does not matter if they are starting or continuing it, it's a bad policy. I take comfort in being the biggest, most feared kid on the block.
 
#55
#55
volfanjustin said:
It does not matter if they are starting or continuing it, it's a bad policy. I take comfort in being the biggest, most feared kid on the block.
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. We are wasting money to keep 5,000 nuclear weapons in active circulation. There's no reason to do it as long as our number of weapons aren't exceeded by any other nation (enemy or not). I understand the "biggest kid on the block" sentiments...but going from 5,000 to 500 will maintain our position as such.
 
#56
#56
rjd970 said:
All things considered, this really isn't a bad move. IMO, what is saying is he is declaring nuclear retaliation off the table except to those we think are legitimate nuclear threats. It basically focuses the threat of nuclear retaliation specific countries while lessening it elsewhere. We don't look like a bully to the whole world, yet we are still strong to those that deserve it. It seems to me that makes the threat more real where it matters, and why it should be very public.

Maybe that is a wrong interpretation, but it makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

The history of the world tells us the bigger the bully the better.
 
#57
#57
TennTradition said:
I couldn't disagree more. We are wasting money to keep 5,000 nuclear weapons in active circulation. There's no reason to do it as long as our number of weapons aren't exceeded by any other nation (enemy or not). I understand the "biggest kid on the block" sentiments...but going from 5,000 to 500 will maintain our position as such.
Click to expand...

I just believe in peace through strength, it's obvious that Barry believes in peace through weakness. I don't believe in this philosophy, it does not work.
 
#59
#59
volfanjustin said:
I just believe in peace through strength, it's obvious that Barry believes in peace through weakness. I don't believe in this philosophy, it does not work.
Click to expand...

I would argue that this philosophy is rather unrelated to today's agreement to continue nuclear arms reductions. This isn't an issue of weakening to bring peace. The nuclear deterrent is not a conventional weapon and can't be viewed as one. A limited number is enough to completely disrupt the way of life on the planet. Anything over this isn't strength, but excess waste, really. It is a good thing to enter these agreements to bring these numbers down to levels where our strength is undeterred, but we don't have the excess baggage.

There is no way that I can accept, given our current numbers of nuclear arms, that bilateral nuclear arms reduction creates weakness.
 
#62
#62
She needs to go home and have a lot of sex with her husband.

Why mess with something she is good at....????
 
#63
#63
TennTradition said:
I would argue that this philosophy is rather unrelated to today's agreement to continue nuclear arms reductions. This isn't an issue of weakening to bring peace. The nuclear deterrent is not a conventional weapon and can't be viewed as one. A limited number is enough to completely disrupt the way of life on the planet. Anything over this isn't strength, but excess waste, really. It is a good thing to enter these agreements to bring these numbers down to levels where our strength is undeterred, but we don't have the excess baggage.

There is no way that I can accept, given our current numbers of nuclear arms, that bilateral nuclear arms reduction creates weakness.
Click to expand...

I'll compromise........... reopen nuke testing at the Nevada Test Site and build new more effecient nuclear weapons and scuttle the old fleet.
 
#64
#64
Going after the nuclear weapons use policy is fair game...it's not cut and dry and there is room for argument. I don't think that she's the person to do it.

I don't see a lot of room to go after the arms reductions (obviously, as my previous posts illustrate).
 
#65
#65
Reducing nuclear armaments isn't a huge deal. 500 nukes are as good as 2500 nukes. The part that is ridiculous though is we have to scale back our delivery systems. While the delivery systems can be used to carry/deploy nukes, they are the same systems that carry our conventional weapons, that Barry says will be enough of a deterrent for other nations. So this new treaty with Russia, while it doesn't have a huge impact on our nuclear strength, does have a huge impact on our conventional strength. It makes no since. Obama is saying that weakening our conventional weapons strength will deter other nations from attacking us.

This is all very idealistic anyways. We all know Russia will drag out their own disarming while we play by the rules. Sure they'll pretend they really care about this for a couple of years and then opt out.
 
#66
#66
Obama better be really careful. Russia has a history of putting egg on the faces of American presidents, especially when they view them as weak.
 
#67
#67
volfanjustin said:
I just believe in peace through strength, it's obvious that Barry believes in peace through weakness. I don't believe in this philosophy, it does not work.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that Ronnie believed in peace through weakness because him and Obama have very similar views in regards to nukes? Didn't Ronnie begin the trend of reducing nuclear arms? I guess that makes him look like a weak pushover just like Barry.
 
#68
#68
Finally!!! The US needs to be reined in.

I don't know how many times I've said to myself, "Why are we capriciously using these nuclear weapons in combat?"

It's like this country just goes around using nukes willy-nilly all over the place. :crazy:
 
#69
#69
TennTradition said:
I would argue that this philosophy is rather unrelated to today's agreement to continue nuclear arms reductions. This isn't an issue of weakening to bring peace. The nuclear deterrent is not a conventional weapon and can't be viewed as one. A limited number is enough to completely disrupt the way of life on the planet. Anything over this isn't strength, but excess waste, really. It is a good thing to enter these agreements to bring these numbers down to levels where our strength is undeterred, but we don't have the excess baggage.

There is no way that I can accept, given our current numbers of nuclear arms, that bilateral nuclear arms reduction creates weakness.
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention that! We are currently outfitting and testing ICBM's for conventional warheads.

Where Nuclear warheads are seen as a deterrent, no one really believes we would use them. With conventional warheads placed in the ICBM's that fear of use is no longer an issue for the US and would make us a much scarier foe.
 
#70
#70
MontereyVol said:
Funny you should mention that! We are currently outfitting and testing ICBM's for conventional warheads.

Where Nuclear warheads are seen as a deterrent, no one really believes we would use them. With conventional warheads placed in the ICBM's that fear of use is no longer an issue for the US and would make us a much scarier foe.
Click to expand...

How does THAT work? When we launch an ICBM with a coventional warhead over the pole at Iran do we phone Russia and say "don't shoot at us, we promise we aren't shooting at you"?
 
#71
#71
Excellent point....how do we avoid tripping early warning systems when we fling conventional weapons via ICBMs?
 
#73
#73
rjd970 said:
How does THAT work? When we launch an ICBM with a coventional warhead over the pole at Iran do we phone Russia and say "don't shoot at us, we promise we aren't shooting at you"?
Click to expand...

TennTradition said:
Excellent point....how do we avoid tripping early warning systems when we fling conventional weapons via ICBMs?
Click to expand...

Well, that's why we don't have them yet. Several ideas have been thrown out there. One is actually to call ahead and let them know, another is to make the ICBM behave differently and launch it from a known non-nuclear site.
 
#74
#74
MontereyVol said:
Well, that's why we don't have them yet. Several ideas have been thrown out there. One is actually to call ahead and let them know, another is to make the ICBM behave differently and launch it from a known non-nuclear site.
Click to expand...

I can see why we don't have them yet then. Both of those suggestions seem awfully dangerous.

On the hand, it would be a huge strategic advantage to be able to hit a target anywhere in the world in under an hour.
 
#75
#75
rjd970 said:
I can see why we don't have them yet then. Both of those suggestions seem awfully dangerous.

On the hand, it would be a huge strategic advantage to be able to hit a target anywhere in the world in under an hour.
Click to expand...

Its going to be a great option when we start to lose a lot of clout because of Iran.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top