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

[Dos Equis]

Really?  Sounds like BS spin to me.

When they get something other than unconfirmed hearsay from anonymous sources.........

......then i think we have something to talk about.

We talk about things we get from the coconut wireless all the time. 

[OzmO]

We talk about things we get from the coconut wireless all the time. 

But I hope we don't always act like its credible lol

[Hugo Chavez]

Exactly, Presidents don't make sweeping policy changes on a whim.  Many people don't understand that, but are still subject to the spin and propaganda that comes from their political base.  (Tool time)

I can see from the rest of the thread that nobody else read or considered my post despite the fact that it is absolutely spot on.  They would rather wig out over shit they at very best have 10% info of....

[Dos Equis]

But I hope we don't always act like its credible lol

Depends on the source and what it says.

[OzmO]

I can see from the rest of the thread that nobody else read or considered my post despite the fact that it is absolutely spot on.  They would rather wig out over shit they at very best have 10% info of....

That is why I commonly say:  tool is tool does or tool time.  Many posters lately have lost their common sense to the basic brainwashing of the 2 ideologies to the point where they lost all objectivity.  I get sucked in all the time lol

[Fury]

That is why I commonly say:  tool is tool does or tool time.  Many posters lately have lost their common sense to the basic brainwashing of the 2 ideologies to the point where they lost all objectivity.  I get sucked in all the time lol

Most likely due to the fact that, like most Getdumbers, you're not playing with a full deck.

[OzmO]

Most likely due to the fact that, like most Getdumbers, you're not playing with a full deck.

As one of the biggest tools here.....

You don't even know what a deck is. 

[avxo]

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.

Finally, someone writes something sensible on the subject! I'll add three things:

(a) Even if we dropped down to 300 strategic nukes we would still maintain the ability to practically annihilate life from the planet, except for roaches and some bacteria. According to publicly available information, the largest strategic warhead we have, the B83 has a yield of 1.2 megatons. 300 of those would have a combined yield of approximately 360 megatons. To put this number in perspective: those 300 bombs would be as powerful as 18,000 of the devices used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were in the 20 kiloton range. Even if you only have 150 of those, that's still 180 megatons, and you keep another 150 variable yield tactical devices, that still is an almost unthinkable amount of firepower

(b) If a strategic nuclear weapon is ever launched, then chances are that it won't matter if you have 300 or 3000 more...

(c) A lot of the weapons in the U.S. Arsenal are pretty old, and are due to be retired anyways. I would bet that a large percentage of that cut can be attributed to such planned withdrawals.

[OzmO]

Finally, someone writes something sensible on the subject! I'll add three things:

(a) Even if we dropped down to 300 strategic nukes we would still maintain the ability to practically annihilate life from the planet, except for roaches and some bacteria. According to publicly available information, the largest strategic warhead we have, the B83 has a yield of 1.2 megatons. 300 of those would have a combined yield of approximately 360 megatons. To put this number in perspective: those 300 bombs would be as powerful as 18,000 of the devices used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were in the 20 kiloton range. Even if you only have 150 of those, that's still 180 megatons, and you keep another 150 variable yield tactical devices, that still is an almost unthinkable amount of firepower

(b) If a strategic nuclear weapon is ever launched, then chances are that it won't matter if you have 300 or 3000 more...

(c) A lot of the weapons in the U.S. Arsenal are pretty old, and are due to be retired anyways. I would bet that a large percentage of that cut can be attributed to such planned withdrawals.

No it's better just to let our cord get yanked  and get all upset over something that:

A) isn't verified
B) comes from unnamed sources
C) we don't really know much about

Living subject to spin.

[whork]

Finally, someone writes something sensible on the subject! I'll add three things:

(a) Even if we dropped down to 300 strategic nukes we would still maintain the ability to practically annihilate life from the planet, except for roaches and some bacteria. According to publicly available information, the largest strategic warhead we have, the B83 has a yield of 1.2 megatons. 300 of those would have a combined yield of approximately 360 megatons. To put this number in perspective: those 300 bombs would be as powerful as 18,000 of the devices used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were in the 20 kiloton range. Even if you only have 150 of those, that's still 180 megatons, and you keep another 150 variable yield tactical devices, that still is an almost unthinkable amount of firepower

(b) If a strategic nuclear weapon is ever launched, then chances are that it won't matter if you have 300 or 3000 more...

(c) A lot of the weapons in the U.S. Arsenal are pretty old, and are due to be retired anyways. I would bet that a large percentage of that cut can be attributed to such planned withdrawals.

Bump