obama thinking about 80% reduction of Nukes

[erynthered]

Just when I think this idiot cant get any more foolish, KABAM!!!

 

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NUCLEAR_WEAPONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

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.

[DC Tom]

Just when I think this idiot cant get any more foolish, KABAM!!!

 

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NUCLEAR_WEAPONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

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.

 

Please explain how that's foolish...

[erynthered]

5,113 including inactive reserves. 1790 deployed. Already reduced by 75% since the Berlin Wall came down.

 

Weakness invites aggression.

 

Experts tell us that nukes deteriorate over time and that testing and upgrades are needed to our aging nuke force. We don't test. The weapons we have might not even all work 100% today. Reduce the numbers as mush as proposed and we might be left without a credible deterrent.

Edited February 15, 2012 by erynthered

[DC Tom]

5,113 including inactive reserves. 1790 deployed. Already reduced by 75% since the Berlin Wall came down.

 

Weakness invites aggression.

 

Experts tell us that nukes deteriorate over time and that testing and upgrades are needed to our aging nuke force. We don't test. The weapons we have might not even all work 100% today. Reduce the numbers as mush as proposed and we might be left without a credible deterrent.

 

So what is the minimum number of nuclear warheads that is a "credible deterrent"?

[Jauronimo]

So what is the minimum number of nuclear warheads that is a "credible deterrent"?

Clearly, you need enough nuclear ordinance to hit every square foot of land 3 times over to deter the Russians from something.

[erynthered]

Clearly, you need enough nuclear ordinance to hit every square foot of land 3 times over to deter the Russians from something.

 

 

Speaking of the Ruskies...

 

December 21, 2011 – MOSCOW – Russia, frustrated with anti-nuke talks with the United States has decided to put an end to the talks and move forward with its plans to upgrade its nuclear defensive and offensive systems, including the construction on a new and more powerful Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM). Nicknamed “Satan” by Western intelligence, the new missile carries a 100-ton warhead. This giant ICBM will take its place at the head of an already impressive missile arsenal which includes the Yars, Topol-M and Bulava-class ballistic missiles sometime in 2015.

http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpre...on-in-arsenal/

 

 

 

Yeah, but lets cut ours 80%

 

So what is the minimum number of nuclear warheads that is a "credible deterrent"?

 

 

The number we have now seems about right.

[3rdnlng]

Speaking of the Ruskies...

 

December 21, 2011 – MOSCOW – Russia, frustrated with anti-nuke talks with the United States has decided to put an end to the talks and move forward with its plans to upgrade its nuclear defensive and offensive systems, including the construction on a new and more powerful Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM). Nicknamed “Satan” by Western intelligence, the new missile carries a 100-ton warhead. This giant ICBM will take its place at the head of an already impressive missile arsenal which includes the Yars, Topol-M and Bulava-class ballistic missiles sometime in 2015.

http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpre...on-in-arsenal/

 

 

 

Yeah, but lets cut ours 80%

 

 

 

 

The number we have now seems about right.

 

 

I haven't been following this issue but why would Russia on the one hand be frustrated over the negotiations if Obama wants to reduce our arsenal to a great extent?

[RkFast]

This is just the American Way and its been so forever......

 

1. Cut budgets, ignore threats, whistle along, focus on pop culture nonsense

 

2. Fall victim to something that we werent prepared for as a result of #1

 

3. Self-flaggelate about how "tough" and "can do" we are. Chant "USA!!! USA!!!"

 

4. Bomb something

 

5. Overlegislate and overspend to make sure #2 'never happens again'

 

6. After approx 5-10 years, return to #1

Edited February 15, 2012 by RkFast

[erynthered]

I haven't been following this issue but why would Russia on the one hand be frustrated over the negotiations if Obama wants to reduce our arsenal to a great extent?

 

 

The Shield.

 

Russian president Dimitri Medvedev walked out of talks with the United States back in November over U.S. plans to set up a missile defense system in Europe. The European Phased Adaptive Approach plan is an intricate array of sea and land based missiles which were designed to be used against a missile attack from Iran. The U.S. says that cooperation from Moscow is needed to help the shield work. Moscow on the other hand claims the talks were useless because the U.S. refused to guarantee the missiles would not be aimed at Russia.

 

 

 

This is just the American Way and its been so forever......

 

1. Cut budgets, ignore threats, whistle along, focus on pop culture nonsense

 

2. Fall victim to something that we werent prepared for as a result of #1

 

3. Self-flaggelate about how "tough" and "can do" we are. Chant "USA!!! USA!!!"

 

4. Bomb something

 

5. Overlegislate and overspend to make sure #2 'never happens again'

 

6. After approx 5-10 years, return to #1

 

This is nothing more than obama's planned emasculation of the USA by the “we hate America” radical left. It is a three pronged strategy,

 

1. Destroy the US economy through massive debt, devalued currency, and high fuel prices.

 

2. Destroy the will of the people by high unemployment, onerous regulations via "healthcare" and pitting economic classes and races against each other.

 

3. Destroy the military by cutting nukes and funding; reducing the number of men in uniform and over extending and exhausting the rest.

 

 

[DC Tom]

I haven't been following this issue but why would Russia on the one hand be frustrated over the negotiations if Obama wants to reduce our arsenal to a great extent?

 

The ABM system in Eastern Europe.

 

Which is less about "ABM system" than it is "US influence in Eastern Europe". No matter what we do, unless we include "...and we're not going to be BFFs with the Poles and Rumanians, we promise," the Russians get all pissy.

 

Speaking of the Ruskies...

 

December 21, 2011 – MOSCOW – Russia, frustrated with anti-nuke talks with the United States has decided to put an end to the talks and move forward with its plans to upgrade its nuclear defensive and offensive systems, including the construction on a new and more powerful Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM). Nicknamed “Satan” by Western intelligence, the new missile carries a 100-ton warhead. This giant ICBM will take its place at the head of an already impressive missile arsenal which includes the Yars, Topol-M and Bulava-class ballistic missiles sometime in 2015.

http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpre...on-in-arsenal/

 

 

 

Yeah, but lets cut ours 80%

 

That's inaccurate in too many ways to even list. Get a real source.

 

And are we talking about missiles now? I thought we were talking about warheads.

 

The number we have now seems about right.

 

Based on what strategic calculus?

[RkFast]

Tom, youre annoying the **** out of me becuase YOU know the right "number" of warheads we really need to have, but youre goading others to give you a number just so you can call them an idiot when they are wrong!!!

[DC Tom]

Tom, youre annoying the **** out of me becuase YOU know the right "number" of warheads we really need to have, but youre goading others to give you a number just so you can call them an idiot when they are wrong!!!

 

Nope. I don't know the "right" number...I just know I don't know, which makes me far more knowledgeable than the rest of you.

 

And I know that "deterrence" is a load of ****. At best, it's "having a strong military with no intention of using it." At worst, it's vengeance masquerading as power. The idea that having a whole shitload of nuclear weapons is "defensive" is brought to you by the same morons that think an ABM system is "offensive" and destabilizing.

 

And...where's your threat assessment that states we have to maintain stocks of a large number of weapons in the face of threats we can't even use them against?

 

 

 

 

And one more point: I've never called anyone an idiot just because they're wrong. DiN, for example, is an idiot even when you're right. "Idiocy" isn't the inability to think correctly, it's the inability to think coherently. You want to discuss nuclear strategy with me, then do it. Don't make ridiculous statements justified with an "Obama bad" prejudice.

Edited February 15, 2012 by DC Tom

[3rdnlng]

Nope. I don't know the "right" number...I just know I don't know, which makes me far more knowledgeable than the rest of you.And I know that "deterrence" is a load of ****. At best, it's "having a strong military with no intention of using it." At worst, it's vengeance masquerading as power. The idea that having a whole shitload of nuclear weapons is "defensive" is brought to you by the same morons that think an ABM system is "offensive" and destabilizing.

 

And...where's your threat assessment that states we have to maintain stocks of a large number of weapons in the face of threats we can't even use them against?

 

 

 

 

And one more point: I've never called anyone an idiot just because they're wrong. DiN, for example, is an idiot even when you're right. "Idiocy" isn't the inability to think correctly, it's the inability to think coherently. You want to discuss nuclear strategy with me, then do it. Don't make ridiculous statements justified with an "Obama bad" prejudice.

 

 

Well, I can guarantee you that I know less about about the right number to have than you do. I guess I'm more knowledgeable than the rest of this board except for maybe DIN who knows nothing.

[Adam]

Just when I think this idiot cant get any more foolish, KABAM!!!

 

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NUCLEAR_WEAPONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

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.

Well, wouldn't that relieve a lot of money that goes into maintaining them? Nukes are nukes, after all, how many do you really need? I know some think that money springs forth from a fountain, but the deficit won't make itself go away, and neither side wants to budge on what they want to be untouchable.

[John Adams]

Tom, youre annoying the **** out of me becuase YOU know the right "number" of warheads we really need to have, but youre goading others to give you a number just so you can call them an idiot when they are wrong!!!

 

That's the funniest post ever.

 

My thinking on this subject: Even at 20% of what we have, 1,000 seems like more than enough. Not to go all Jane Fonda...but I'll pass on a world where we're in such a spitstorm that it required us to detonate more than 1000 warheads. Nuclear deterrence is a load of spit after a certain number...1000 is plenty above whatever number that is.*

 

*Or Tom defines.

Edited February 15, 2012 by John Adams

[Magox]

I'm not a pro war sort of dude at all, and I know I'm oversimplifying things here, but common sense tells me that if someone is gonna pick a fight, they usually will pick the smaller dude.

[John Adams]

I'm not a pro war sort of dude at all, and I know I'm oversimplifying things here, but common sense tells me that if someone is gonna pick a fight, they usually will pick the smaller dude.

 

Not true in the world at large and not true in a bar.

 

The big huge country (and guy) is always a target.

[Magox]

Not true in the world at large and not true in a bar.

 

The big huge country (and guy) is always a target.

I disagree with the Bar part. As an ex owner of a night club that averaged over 500 people a night on the weekends and a billiards bar, working 6 nights a week over a 6 year period, You're wrong. Big guys in most circumstances picked on guys that they believed they could take down, why? Because in their mind they knew they could.

[John Adams]

I disagree with the Bar part. As an ex owner of a night club that averaged over 500 people a night on the weekends and a billiards bar, working 6 nights a week over a 6 year period, You're wrong. Big guys in most circumstances picked on guys that they believed they could take down, why? Because in their mind they knew they could.

 

People pick fights with big guys because they are big. It happens.

[Rob's House]

Not true in the world at large and not true in a bar.

 

The big huge country (and guy) is always a target.

bull ****. Big dudes seldom if ever get !@#$ed with. I know a lot of guys under 6' in the 140-170 lb range that have to deal with over aggressive types periodically. Those of us over 6' & over 200 lb never have to deal with that ****.

 

As far as countries go, I'm not the authority on nukes, nor do I know the "right" number, but I do know it's retarded to think reducing your arsenal will lead to peace. If professional military strategists believe that we can make that kind of reduction without compromising our military effectiveness that's one thing. But to make the assumption that one of us has that knowledge is beyond stupid.