NPR : Obama trying to cut our Nuclear Arsenal by 80%

[Soul Crusher]

US Weighing Steep Nuclear Arms Cuts
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

text size A A A WASHINGTON February 14, 2012, 05:51 pm ET
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.

A level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons would take the U.S. back to levels not seen since 1950 when the nation was ramping up production in an arms race with the Soviet Union. The U.S. numbers peaked at above 12,000 in the late 1980s and first dropped below 5,000 in 2003.

Obama has often cited his desire to seek lower levels of nuclear weapons, but specific options for a further round of cuts had been kept under wraps until the AP learned of the three options now on the table.

A spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, Tommy Vietor, said Tuesday that the options developed by the Pentagon have not yet been presented to Obama.

The Pentagon's press secretary, George Little, declined to comment on specific force level options because they are classified. He said Obama had asked the Pentagon to develop several "alternative approaches" to nuclear deterrence.

The U.S. could make further weapons reductions on its own but is seen as more likely to propose a new round of arms negotiations with Russia, in which cuts in deployed weapons would be one element in a possible new treaty between the former Cold War adversaries.

Stephen Young, senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which favors nuclear arms reductions, said Tuesday, "The administration is absolutely correct to look at deep cuts like this. The United States does not rely on nuclear weapons as a central part of our security."

Even small proposed cuts are likely to draw heavy criticism from Republicans who have argued that a smaller nuclear force would weaken the U.S. at a time when Russia, China and others are strengthening their nuclear capabilities. They also argue that shrinking the American arsenal would undermine the credibility of the nuclear "umbrella" that the United States provides for allies such as Japan, South Korea and Turkey, who might otherwise build their own nuclear forces.

The administration last year began considering a range of possible future reductions below the levels agreed in the New START treaty with Russia that took effect one year ago. Options are expected to be presented to Obama soon. The force levels he settles on will form the basis of a new strategic nuclear war plan to be produced by the Pentagon.

The U.S. already is on track to reduce to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads by 2018, as required by New START. As of last Sept. 1, the United States had 1,790 warheads and Russia had 1,566, according to treaty-mandated reports by each. The treaty does not bar either country from cutting below 1,550 on their own.

Those who favor additional cuts argue that nuclear weapons have no role in major security threats of the 21st century, such as terrorism. A 2010 nuclear policy review by the Pentagon said the U.S. nuclear arsenal also is "poorly suited" to deal with challenges posed by "unfriendly regimes seeking nuclear weapons" — an apparent reference to Iran.

It's unclear what calculus went into each of the three options now under consideration at the White House.

The notion of a 300-weapon arsenal is featured prominently in a paper written for the Pentagon by a RAND National Defense Project Institute analyst last October, in the early stages of the administration's review of nuclear requirements. The author, Paul K. Davis, wrote that he was not advocating any particular course of action but sought to provide an analytic guide for how policymakers could think about the implications of various levels of nuclear reductions.

Davis wrote that an arsenal of 300 weapons might be considered adequate for deterrence purposes if that force level was part of a treaty with sound anti-cheating provisions; if the U.S. deployed additional non-nuclear weapons with global reach, and if the U.S. had "hypothetically excellent," if limited, defenses against long- and medium-range nuclear missiles.

In 2010, three Air Force analysts wrote in Strategic Studies Quarterly, an Air Force publication, that the U.S. could get by with as few as 311 deployed nuclear weapons, and that it didn't matter whether Russia followed suit with its own cuts.

New U.S. cuts could open the prospect for a historic reshaping of the American nuclear arsenal, which for decades has stood on three legs: submarine-launched ballistic missiles, ground-based ballistic missiles and weapons launched from big bombers like the B-52 and the stealthy B-2. The traditional rationale for this "triad" of weaponry is that it is essential to surviving any nuclear exchange.

As recently as last month the administration said it was keeping the triad intact under current plans, while also hinting at future cuts to the force. In the 2013 defense budget submitted to Congress on Monday, the administration proposed a two-year delay in the development of a new generation of ballistic missile submarines that carry nuclear weapons. That will save an estimated $4.3 billion over five years.

In congressional testimony last November, the Pentagon's point man on nuclear policy, James N. Miller, declined to say what options for force reductions the administration was considering. Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's strategic forces subcommittee, unsuccessfully pressed Miller for key details about his policy review. As recently as last month Turner said in an interview that he feared the administration was bent on cutting the force.

In his written testimony at a Nov. 2 hearing chaired by Turner, Miller made it clear that the administration was making a fundamental reassessment of nuclear weapons requirements. In unusually stark terms he said the critical question at hand was "what to do" if a nuclear-armed state or non-state entity could not be deterred from launching an attack.

"In effect, we are asking: what are the guiding concepts for employing nuclear weapons to deter adversaries of the United States, and what are the guiding concepts for ending a nuclear conflict on the best possible terms if one has started?" he said.

Nuclear stockpile numbers are closely guarded secrets in most states that possess them, but private nuclear policy experts say no countries other than the U.S. and Russia are thought to have more than 300. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that France has about 300, China about 240, Britain about 225, and Israel, India and Pakistan roughly 100 each.

Since taking office Obama has put heavy emphasis on reducing the role and number of nuclear weapons as part of a broader strategy for limiting the global spread of nuclear arms technology and containing the threat of nuclear terrorism. That strategy is being put to the test most urgently by Iran's suspected pursuit of a nuclear bomb.

___

Robert Burns can be followed on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/robertburnsAP

 
Twitter (0)Facebook (3)Google+ShareRecommend (0)

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.npr.org/tablet/#story/?storyId=146879509

[headhuntersix]

"What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their Lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric? Who shall rid me of this troublesome priest?"

[Soul Crusher]

Obama is the Antichrist and the devil. 

[headhuntersix]

Yup

[Soul Crusher]

A second term w this communist traitor and ghetto pimp will be the end of us.   

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

US Weighing Steep Nuclear Arms Cuts
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

text size A A A WASHINGTON February 14, 2012, 05:51 pm ET
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.

A level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons would take the U.S. back to levels not seen since 1950 when the nation was ramping up production in an arms race with the Soviet Union. The U.S. numbers peaked at above 12,000 in the late 1980s and first dropped below 5,000 in 2003.

Obama has often cited his desire to seek lower levels of nuclear weapons, but specific options for a further round of cuts had been kept under wraps until the AP learned of the three options now on the table.

A spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, Tommy Vietor, said Tuesday that the options developed by the Pentagon have not yet been presented to Obama.

The Pentagon's press secretary, George Little, declined to comment on specific force level options because they are classified. He said Obama had asked the Pentagon to develop several "alternative approaches" to nuclear deterrence.

The U.S. could make further weapons reductions on its own but is seen as more likely to propose a new round of arms negotiations with Russia, in which cuts in deployed weapons would be one element in a possible new treaty between the former Cold War adversaries.

Stephen Young, senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which favors nuclear arms reductions, said Tuesday, "The administration is absolutely correct to look at deep cuts like this. The United States does not rely on nuclear weapons as a central part of our security."

Even small proposed cuts are likely to draw heavy criticism from Republicans who have argued that a smaller nuclear force would weaken the U.S. at a time when Russia, China and others are strengthening their nuclear capabilities. They also argue that shrinking the American arsenal would undermine the credibility of the nuclear "umbrella" that the United States provides for allies such as Japan, South Korea and Turkey, who might otherwise build their own nuclear forces.

The administration last year began considering a range of possible future reductions below the levels agreed in the New START treaty with Russia that took effect one year ago. Options are expected to be presented to Obama soon. The force levels he settles on will form the basis of a new strategic nuclear war plan to be produced by the Pentagon.

The U.S. already is on track to reduce to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads by 2018, as required by New START. As of last Sept. 1, the United States had 1,790 warheads and Russia had 1,566, according to treaty-mandated reports by each. The treaty does not bar either country from cutting below 1,550 on their own.

Those who favor additional cuts argue that nuclear weapons have no role in major security threats of the 21st century, such as terrorism. A 2010 nuclear policy review by the Pentagon said the U.S. nuclear arsenal also is "poorly suited" to deal with challenges posed by "unfriendly regimes seeking nuclear weapons" — an apparent reference to Iran.

It's unclear what calculus went into each of the three options now under consideration at the White House.

The notion of a 300-weapon arsenal is featured prominently in a paper written for the Pentagon by a RAND National Defense Project Institute analyst last October, in the early stages of the administration's review of nuclear requirements. The author, Paul K. Davis, wrote that he was not advocating any particular course of action but sought to provide an analytic guide for how policymakers could think about the implications of various levels of nuclear reductions.

Davis wrote that an arsenal of 300 weapons might be considered adequate for deterrence purposes if that force level was part of a treaty with sound anti-cheating provisions; if the U.S. deployed additional non-nuclear weapons with global reach, and if the U.S. had "hypothetically excellent," if limited, defenses against long- and medium-range nuclear missiles.

In 2010, three Air Force analysts wrote in Strategic Studies Quarterly, an Air Force publication, that the U.S. could get by with as few as 311 deployed nuclear weapons, and that it didn't matter whether Russia followed suit with its own cuts.

New U.S. cuts could open the prospect for a historic reshaping of the American nuclear arsenal, which for decades has stood on three legs: submarine-launched ballistic missiles, ground-based ballistic missiles and weapons launched from big bombers like the B-52 and the stealthy B-2. The traditional rationale for this "triad" of weaponry is that it is essential to surviving any nuclear exchange.

As recently as last month the administration said it was keeping the triad intact under current plans, while also hinting at future cuts to the force. In the 2013 defense budget submitted to Congress on Monday, the administration proposed a two-year delay in the development of a new generation of ballistic missile submarines that carry nuclear weapons. That will save an estimated $4.3 billion over five years.

In congressional testimony last November, the Pentagon's point man on nuclear policy, James N. Miller, declined to say what options for force reductions the administration was considering. Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's strategic forces subcommittee, unsuccessfully pressed Miller for key details about his policy review. As recently as last month Turner said in an interview that he feared the administration was bent on cutting the force.

In his written testimony at a Nov. 2 hearing chaired by Turner, Miller made it clear that the administration was making a fundamental reassessment of nuclear weapons requirements. In unusually stark terms he said the critical question at hand was "what to do" if a nuclear-armed state or non-state entity could not be deterred from launching an attack.

"In effect, we are asking: what are the guiding concepts for employing nuclear weapons to deter adversaries of the United States, and what are the guiding concepts for ending a nuclear conflict on the best possible terms if one has started?" he said.

Nuclear stockpile numbers are closely guarded secrets in most states that possess them, but private nuclear policy experts say no countries other than the U.S. and Russia are thought to have more than 300. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that France has about 300, China about 240, Britain about 225, and Israel, India and Pakistan roughly 100 each.

Since taking office Obama has put heavy emphasis on reducing the role and number of nuclear weapons as part of a broader strategy for limiting the global spread of nuclear arms technology and containing the threat of nuclear terrorism. That strategy is being put to the test most urgently by Iran's suspected pursuit of a nuclear bomb.

___

Robert Burns can be followed on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/robertburnsAP

 
Twitter (0)Facebook (3)Google+ShareRecommend (0)

Even if we cut all of our weapons by 90%, we would still have more weapons than all the nations combined,  especially nukes......

[Soul Crusher]

Nuking our Nukes
Posted By Bill Gertz On February 14, 2012 @ 4:53 pm In National Security | No Comments

President Obama has ordered the Pentagon to consider cutting U.S. strategic nuclear forces to as low as 300 deployed warheads—below the number believed to be in China’s arsenal and far fewer than current Russian strategic warhead stocks.

Pentagon and military planners were asked to develop three force levels for the U.S. arsenal of deployed strategic nuclear warheads: a force of 1,100 to 1,000 warheads; a second scenario of between 700 and 800 warheads; and the lowest level of between 300 and 400 warheads.

A congressional official said no president in the past ever told the Pentagon to conduct a review based on specific numbers of warheads.

“In the past, the way it worked was, ‘tell me what the world is like and then tell me what the force should be,’” the official said. “That is not happening in this review.”

The plan for a radical cut in warheads is contained in a review of nuclear weapons ordered by the president in an August directive. The review called the Nuclear Posture Review Implementation Study is nearing completion and could be presented to the president as early as next month.

The plan has come under fire from senior military officers in charge of maintaining nuclear deterrence against Russia, China, and future nuclear rogue states.

Asked about the opposition, a senior officer involved in strategic arms declined to comment.

Critics of the nuclear force cuts in Congress and the national security community said the force structure is being studied without matching the need for nuclear forces to combat growing threats, as was done in past strategic nuclear reviews.

Currently, the U.S. arsenal includes about 5,000 warheads, many of them slated for dismantlement. Russia has between 4,000 and 6,500 warheads and China is believed to have more than 300.

Pentagon spokesman George Little declined to comment on the specific force levels being examined in the review.

“While the details are classified, the president asked DoD to develop several alternative approaches to deterrence and stability, to include illustrative force size and postures to best support those alternatives,” Little said. “As part of the NPR implementation study, DOD is evaluating these alternatives using policy criteria outlined in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review.”

John Bolton, former U.N. ambassador and undersecretary of state for international security during the George W. Bush administration, said in an interview that the administration’s plan to cut nuclear force to as low as 300 “alone is sufficient to vote against Obama in November.”

“Congress should urgently adopt a resolution rejecting the idea that any of these levels is consistent with American national security,” Bolton said. “Let’s just see who is prepared to support Obama.”

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said even considering such deep strategic cuts is irrational.

“No sane military leader would condone 300 to 400 warheads for an effective nuclear deterrent strategy,” McInerney told the Washington Free Beacon.

“Going down to 1000 to 1,100 is risky enough and frankly in today’s world, very risky. The purpose of our nuclear force structure is to deter any adversary from even thinking that they could minimize our attack options. Such thinking is very dangerous and will only encourage our adversaries to make bold decisions.”

A congressional official and former administration official familiar with the ongoing review said the bottom level warhead levels raise serious questions about whether a nuclear force that size would deter adversaries. It also would raise questions about so-called “extended deterrence,” the threat to use nuclear weapons against states like North Korea on behalf of allies like Japan.

The new strategic review reflects the president’s 2009 speech in Prague when he said the United States would pursue peace and security in a world “without nuclear weapons.”

In 2010, the administration issued its Nuclear Posture Review that reduced the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. military posture. Then in March, Thomas Donilon, White House National Security Adviser, said in a speech the administration was making plans for “the next round of nuclear reductions.”

Under the U.S.-Russia New START arms treaty, U.S. nuclear forces will be cut to 1,550 warheads.

Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio and chairman of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, said during a hearing in November that he is concerned about planned cuts in nuclear forces.

“The administration reviews are all being done to support further U.S. reductions,” Turner said, “This is concerning.”

U.S. officials say the failure of the United States to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent force would likely lead to other nations developing nuclear weapons.

Senior members of the Saudi Arabian royal family recently discussed the kingdom’s development of nuclear arms in response to Iran’s covert nuclear program.

And South Korea and Japan could decide to develop nuclear arsenals to deter North Korea’s and China’s nuclear forces.

James Miller, deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, told Congress in November that the NPR implementation study, when completed, will result in “more detailed planning guidance to the military, and then [U.S. Strategic Command] will revise its military plans.” The review will also be used for “future arms control proposals,” he said.

Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, said during the same hearing with Miller that the 2010 nuclear review “validated the continuing need for a triad” of missiles, bombers, and missile-firing submarines.

“These plans are essential to maintaining long term confidence in our nuclear deterrent capabilities,” Kehler said. “Unfortunately, the nuclear enterprise simultaneously faces significant capitalization challenges and extraordinary fiscal pressures.”

The administration committed to spending as much as $85 billion over 10 years to modernize U.S. nuclear forces and infrastructure as part of the Senate’s New START ratification debate in 2010.

However, some on Capitol Hill are calling the administration’s commitment to nuclear modernization into question.

Kehler’s predecessor at Stratcom, Gen. Kevin P. Chilton, told a recent congressional hearing that the 1,550 warheads under New START are the lowest level for security and deterrence.

When asked if the New START levels included more warheads than needed, Chilton said: “I do not agree that it is more than is needed.  I think the arsenal that we have is exactly what is needed today to provide the deterrent.”

Kenneth deGraffenreid, a former Reagan administration National Security Council official, said in an interview that the plans for sharp nuclear cuts are “part of the administration’s purposeful decline of American military power.”

The damage to nuclear forces is compounded by “massive reductions across the board in defense spending on conventional forces,” he said.

“Defense is the only part of government this administration is reducing,” he said. “There wasn’t a single dollar of stimulus money spent on defense.”

 

Article printed from Washington Free Beacon: http://freebeacon.com

URL to article: http://freebeacon.com/nuking-our-nukes/

Click here to print.

[Soul Crusher]

A Cut Too Far

Obama set to seek deeper cuts in nuclear arsenal

AP

Email Us

BY: Bill Gertz - June 19, 2012 5:00 am



President Obama has decided to seek deeper cuts in deployed strategic nuclear weapons to as few as 1,000 warheads, sharply below the target of 1,550 warheads required under a 2010 U.S.-Russia arms treaty, U.S. officials said Monday.
 
Critics say the steep cuts, which the administration will seek in new talks with a growing anti-U.S. government in Moscow, would undermine U.S. strategic deterrence for the United States and its allies in Asia and Europe.
 
The lower warhead levels also would be contrary to recent congressional testimony from a strategic forces commander who said further cuts would weaken the ability to deter nuclear states like Russia and China.
 
A U.S. strategic nuclear force posture of 1,000 strategic warheads has not been seen since the early 1950s. At the height of the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union had as many as 30,000 nuclear weapons.
 
The deeper nuclear cuts are outlined in a forthcoming report the Pentagon calls the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) implementation study, dubbed the mini-NPR, and reflect President Obama’s announced 2009 effort to completely eliminate all nuclear weapons. The announcement comes despite reports that Russia and China are engaged in a major buildup of their nuclear forces, and North Korea and Iran are developing nuclear arsenals.
 
A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment on the mini-NPR study results. Other officials said the study results would be made public in the next few days.
 
The officials confirmed the new projected warhead levels after they were first reported Friday by Japan’s Kyodo news agency.
 
U.S. officials also said the forthcoming mini-NPR report will rule out steeper cuts of between 800 and 300 warheads. The lowest number is fewer than are currently estimated to be in China’s warhead arsenal.
 
Before retiring in 2011, U.S. Strategic Command commander Gen. Kevin P. Chilton told Congress that warhead levels of around 1,550 warheads under New START are needed for strong deterrence against nuclear threats. “I think the arsenal we have is exactly what is needed today to provide the deterrent,” he said.
 
Gen. Robert Kehler, the current Strategic Command leader, said last month that he is worried about cuts in both warheads and funding needed for modernizing aging nuclear weapons and infrastructure.
 
Under difficult fiscal constraints, nuclear forces that need modernizing include delivery systems, weapons life extension programs, stockpile monitoring, naval reactor design work, and upgrades for nuclear command and control, Kehler said during a talk at the Council on Foreign Relations.
 
If further cuts are made, “we will have to go back and do what we did with this round of reductions: completely review what those impacts could be and make the appropriate recommendations,” the four-star general said.
 
“Of all the elements of the nuclear enterprise, I’m most concerned with the potential for declining or inadequate investment in the nuclear weapons enterprise itself, some declining investment that would result in our inability to sustain the deterrent force,” he said.
 
“Our weapons are aging, and we face the continued erosion of the nuclear enterprise’s physical and intellectual capital.”
 
Without investments for modernizing nuclear arms and infrastructure, “maintaining the long-term credibility and viability of the nation’s nuclear deterrent will not be possible,” Kehler said.
 
Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, a former State Department arms control undersecretary, said he is very worried that deeper cuts will harm U.S. security.
 
“Levels under the New START agreement are already too low,” Bolton told the Free Beacon. “Going below that reflects blind ideology, not strategic analysis of U.S. defense needs. This is what a second Obama term will bring.”
 
President Obama was overheard during a meeting with then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev telling the Russian leader that he would have “more flexibility” in strategic talks with Russia after his presumed reelection. The comment was widely viewed as the president offering additional concessions to Moscow beyond many already made as part of the administration’s conciliatory “reset” policy toward Russia.
 
Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy that advocates the Reagan administration defense policy of peace through strength, said the further warhead cuts would weaken U.S. security.
 
“This is of a piece with the Obama administration’s program to rid the world of nuclear weapons, starting with ours,” Gaffney said in an interview.
 
Gaffney said new warhead cuts would add to other national security problems caused by the administration, including what he termed a “defective” New START treaty; a failure to follow through on nuclear modernization promises; efforts to permanently prevent testing of new weapons; and the decline of the nuclear industrial base.
 
“The Nuclear Posture Review implementation study will make plain that this is a matter of ideology and not national security,” Gaffney said.
 
The Free Beacon first reported Feb. 14 that the president directed the Pentagon to examine cutting nuclear forces to as few as 300 warheads, less than communist China’s growing nuclear force.
 
The presidential directive for the mini-NPR was sent from the White House in August and called for military and policy officials to examine three warhead levels: 1,100 to 1,000; between 700 and 800; and between 300 and 400 warheads.
 
The study was the first time a president had ordered basing strategic warheads on specific levels. In the past, warhead levels were matched to maintaining deterrence against foreign threats, mainly the Soviet Union, later Russia, and more recently China and North Korea.
 
There are currently an estimated 5,000 warheads in the U.S. arsenal. Under the 2010 New START arms treaty with Russia, U.S. deployed strategic warhead levels will be cut to 1,550. After the treaty was signed, the administration disclosed that Russian warhead levels had already been lowered to 1,550.
 
Pentagon spokesman George Little said in February that the details for the mini-NPR were classified. However, he stated that the president had tasked the Pentagon to “develop several alternative approaches to deterrence and stability, to include illustrative force size and postures to best support those alternatives.”
 
The Pentagon was evaluating the alternatives based on the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review.
 
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said the administration is seeking to unilaterally disarm U.S. nuclear forces, something that is “the most dangerous thing I have ever seen an American President attempt to do.”
 
“This is not the time to embark on such a dangerous path, with China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea increasing their nuclear forces,” he said.
 
President Obama said in a major speech in Prague, Czech Republic in 2009 that the United States should eliminate all nuclear weapons.

 This entry was posted in National Security and tagged New Start, Nuclear, Nuclear Posture Review, Russia. Bookmark the permalink.

[240 is Back]

“It is my fervent goal and hope…that we will some day no longer have to rely on nuclear weapons to deter aggression and assure world peace. To that end the United States is now engaged in a serious and sustained effort to negotiate major reductions in levels of offensive nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of eliminating these weapons from the face of the earth.”

Ronald Reagan, October 20, 1986

[Hugo Chavez]

“It is my fervent goal and hope…that we will some day no longer have to rely on nuclear weapons to deter aggression and assure world peace. To that end the United States is now engaged in a serious and sustained effort to negotiate major reductions in levels of offensive nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of eliminating these weapons from the face of the earth.”

Ronald Reagan, October 20, 1986

Oh you fucking troll, lol

"With the USS Ronald Reagan in Santa Barbara, it is worth reflecting on Ronald Reagan’s legacy with regard to nuclear weapons.  According to his wife, Nancy, “Ronnie had many hopes for the future, and none were more important to America and to mankind than the effort to create a world free of nuclear weapons."
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2008/01/13_krieger_reagan_abolitionist.php?krieger

[240 is Back]

Obama is carrying out Reagan's dream.  Pretty admirable. 

[OzmO]

Obama is carrying out Reagan's dream.  Pretty admirable. 

Heheheheheheheheh


The puppet show continues.....

[Shockwave]

Oh you fucking troll, lol

"With the USS Ronald Reagan in Santa Barbara, it is worth reflecting on Ronald Reagan’s legacy with regard to nuclear weapons.  According to his wife, Nancy, “Ronnie had many hopes for the future, and none were more important to America and to mankind than the effort to create a world free of nuclear weapons."
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2008/01/13_krieger_reagan_abolitionist.php?krieger

I think it needs to be a worldwide reduction, with everyone one the same page. I mean, its akin to laying down your guns while surrounded by people with guns, that are only being nice to you because you have the bigger guns.

The key, IMHO, is to get everyone to lay down their arms at the same time. Being the 1st to lay it down, and HOPE that others follow suit, all on faith, is suicide IMHO.

[240 is Back]

I think it needs to be a worldwide reduction, with everyone one the same page. I mean, its akin to laying down your guns while surrounded by people with guns, that are only being nice to you because you have the bigger guns.

The key, IMHO, is to get everyone to lay down their arms at the same time. Being the 1st to lay it down, and HOPE that others follow suit, all on faith, is suicide IMHO.

maybe you only have two arms to hold the guns.  And maybe you're holding two full-auto AK's with suicided banana clips x 3, and it's a very small fucking room.

In that case, two guns and evryone is dead as dirt anyways.   The fact you're sitting on an unstable crate of 75 more rifles really matters naught.

[Shockwave]

maybe you only have two arms to hold the guns.  And maybe you're holding two full-auto AK's with suicided banana clips x 3, and it's a very small fucking room.

In that case, two guns and evryone is dead as dirt anyways.   The fact you're sitting on an unstable crate of 75 more rifles really matters naught.

I understand your comparison, but we have a helluva lot more than 2 arms, and plenty of enemies. Its more like facing down 20 guys in the room, all with weapons pointed at YOU, but you have 20 arms full of automatic weapons pointed back at them.

You put those things down the same time that each of the ones pointed at you go down.

[240 is Back]

I understand your comparison, but we have a helluva lot more than 2 arms, and plenty of enemies. Its more like facing down 20 guys in the room, all with weapons pointed at YOU, but you have 20 arms full of automatic weapons pointed back at them.

OKay, I agree there.  But at some point, when our generals can tell us "yeah, we have enough redundancy to kill every world threat 100%" -

At that point, don't you look at the checkbook balance (overdrawn by 15 trillion) and maybe choose not to buy another $100 bil worth of nukes, just to 'keep up' with others?

[Shockwave]

OKay, I agree there.  But at some point, when our generals can tell us "yeah, we have enough redundancy to kill every world threat 100%" -

At that point, don't you look at the checkbook balance (overdrawn by 15 trillion) and maybe choose not to buy another $100 bil worth of nukes, just to 'keep up' with others?

I dont think anyone is talking about purchasing more nukes there bromosexual.

[Dos Equis]

  Is it November yet?  I hope most of the damage this administration has done isn't permanent.

[Straw Man]

Obama is carrying out Reagan's dream.  Pretty admirable. 

my thoughts exactly

[Soul Crusher]

Reagan did not unilaterally disarm. 

[Hugo Chavez]

I hope everyone realizes that what we actually know on this subject is a small fraction of the reality.  Obama isn't pulling this shit out of his ass.  He's highly guided in this area by some of the same people that guided the last president and will the next.  This isn't an area they casually let the president change course without serious guidance.  And you know when a president crosses that.  That's when you start having people resign.  We've seen that in the past.  That's not happening here.  We have no clue how advanced our tech is in this area.  My guess is ICBM's will be pointless or utterly useless in a few years and I wouldn't be shocked if that's already the case.

[OzmO]

I hope everyone realizes that what we actually know on this subject is a small fraction of the reality.  Obama isn't pulling this shit out of his ass.  He's highly guided in this area by some of the same people that guided the last president and will the next.  This isn't an area they casually let the president change course without serious guidance.  And you know when a president crosses that.  That's when you start having people resign.  We've seen that in the past.  That's not happening here.  We have no clue how advanced our tech is in this area.  My guess is ICBM's will be pointless or utterly useless in a few years and I wouldn't be shocked if that's already the case.

tools realize this, at least i hope deep down. 

[Soul Crusher]

tools realize this, at least i hope deep down. 

I don't.   Look who we haveadvising Obama.

[OzmO]

I don't.   Look who we haveadvising Obama.

Its far beyond that.  Reread Hugo's post.