Obama Wants To Slash Nuclear Weapons by 80 Percent

How does reducing (not removing) our nuclear stockpile change anything? It's just a publicity thing. Instead of being able to destroy the world 100 times over, we can still destroy it 10 times over. End result is the same BUT this move actually makes us look like we are trying to be a peaceful country. I think it is much needed after looking at the past 8 years.

The problem is that the world views us as aggressive. Reducing nukes will make us look less aggressive. It will NOT make us look weak.

 

I think the blowing-the-world-up-100-times-over argument is too facile. I'm sure there are strategic considerations for the number of nukes to have. After all, you really don't want to blow up the whole world. If you have to launch a nuke, you want to be able to do so with a lot of precision and speed. So, you need a variety of nukes pointing at a plethora of potential targets, with varying sizes of destructive ability. You also need backups in case the nukes you wanted to fire are disabled. Having a ceiling on the number of nukes you can have may constrain our ability to blow up the right people at the right time to the right degree.

All that said, if Obama's administration has a plan that can provide adequate nuclear strike coverage in under 1,000 warheads, then godspeed on the reduction treaties.

I think that's bs. And, a dangerous assumption.

 

You're right. Facebook is too complicated since you are required to be added as a contact before you can view the page.

Wiki List of nuclear states and est number of warheads

 

What makes you think that if we keep our current stockpile of nukes instead of REDUCING it, that Russia won't let their nukes leak out to the black market anyway?

Having the nukes to destroy the world 100 times over or 10 times over, Russia can still let their nukes leak out regardless.

 

Well, look who's insinuating that our commander in chief is in league with the "Axis of Evil" while we are at war and our troops are in harm's way.

Hypocrisy is just SOP for you, eh?

 

As a side note, isn’t it great to have a president with international experience and the balls to make good decisions and not be herded along like a mindless sheep? Bush had barely ever been off the continent when he became president, and he was too weak to put a stop the Iraq war when everyone with an ounce of common sense knew that the excuses being given for the war were lies. This is a big reason why Bush was so unpopular outside of the US, and why Obama is extremely popular. Obama has good international experience. He’s smart, and he had the courage to do the right thing and to take on important issues like this.

 

Who exactly are our enemies? N Korea? Cuba? Venezuela? Contrary to popular belief, not everyone wants us dead. They want us to leave them alone. The only real enemies we have are people who are trying to get in our country for terrorist activities. These people are barbaric. They have no intentions in established government. This is why they will bomb their own people.

 

Moon -- by using your computer, you are diverting precious electricity away from your grow house's lamps.

CEASE AND DESIST IMMEDIATELY

 

Are you talking about his field trip to Pock-ee-stan when he was in college? Are you aware he has never even been South of the border?

He has ZERO international foreign policy experience, other than his photo opp visit to Iraq and his visit to Europe to snub the injured troops for a Ritz Carlton workout.

 

What the hell do you do with the 4,000 bombs? I really don't know how we dispose of them. Would someone like to enlighten me?

 

This argument is fundamentally flawed - there's no reason why 10,000 warheads are any more "precise and speedy" than 1000 or 100 warheads.. With modern technology, it could be made pretty easy to reprogram warheads in an instant. At most you are saving a few keystrokes and seconds or fractions of seconds when you have one warhead pointed at northern moscow and one at southern moscow rather than one that can be pointed at either - at the expense of exponential extra cost.

This is like saying "well there are seven continents, so the US should maintain seven full-sized standing armies ready to pounce on each" - you reach a point of diminishing returns.

Dude, if even 100 of 1000 high yield nuclear warheads go off in one target area, I think that does the trick as far as wreaking ginormous amounts of havoc and slaughtering hundreds of millions if not billions. In fact there's probably a good chance it overdoes the trick and puts the whole planet on a nice litttle path to wasteland. YAY

Not as dangerous as somebody who actually thinks that a strategic nuclear war is winnable, which seems to underly your assumptions. I'd rather be blown to bits.

This is some of the same flawed logic that is used to support missile defense. Who cares if we have a missile defense platform that is 60% accurate (currently a pipe dream)? That doesn't account for the 40% of unimaginable destruction that will be rained down. I'd die before I'd live in a U.S.A. that is a Cormac McCarthy "The Road" -type wasteland?

 

How does China factor in to the equation?

 

Hopefully, we use the Uranium and Plutonium to make electricity.

 

China is smart enough to maintain just enough nuclear weapons to make an attack on them not worthwhile, rather than having redundant systems, or at least according to an Ottomaton post from this week they do.

 

Good. I think it's about time they should start investing a new and clean and envirenmental friendly weapon of of mass destruction. I'm serious.

I don't want to see another Chernobyl disaster. Transporting these radioactive stuff is very risky and we still don't have a proper storage for these nuclear radioactive products.

Either that they will need to create something that will break the radioactive product down or neutralize it so that it is more safe.

 

Trader rules!

 

Just look for the big red dot, scan and kill the ghost.

 

Our nukes are no longer "high yield".

They are all tactical nukes, the race for the biggest bomb ended in the 60's with the advent of ICBM's.


Also the fallout can be cleaned up, it's not like the bomb site is forever dead like a chernobyl.

Cool Link

 

Uh not so fast my friend, via wiki:

These break down into 5,021 "strategic" warheads, 1,050 of which are deployed on land-based missile systems (all on Minuteman ICBMs), 1,955 on bombers (B-52, B-1B, and B-2), and 2,016 on submarines (Ohio class), according to a 2006 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council.[13] Of 500 "tactical" "nonstrategic" weapons, around 100 are Tomahawk cruise missiles and 400 are B61 bombs

 

None of which are high yield compared to what we had int he 60's and early 70's.