Obama proposes to further slash nuclear warheads

[rightwinger]

'Our values won,' Obama says in Berlin - CNN.com

Obama's latest proposals come two years after New START -- a nuclear agreement between the United States and Russia -- went into effect. New START, which stands for strategic arms reduction treaty, calls for each country to limit its nuclear warhead arsenal to 1,550 by the year 2018.

Obama's proposals Wednesday would reduce both stockpiles by another one-third -- to roughly 1,000 warheads for each country.

After New START was ratified, Obama ordered a detailed internal analysis of U.S. nuclear needs and what it would take to deter other countries from attacking, the White House said.

"The president has determined that we can ensure our security and that of our allies and partners ... while safely pursuing up to a one-third reduction in deployed strategic nuclear warheads below the New START treaty level," the administration official said.

 

[jwoodie]

What, exactly, is the benefit of reducing our nuclear arsenal?

 

[The Rabbi]

'Our values won,' Obama says in Berlin - CNN.com

Obama's latest proposals come two years after New START -- a nuclear agreement between the United States and Russia -- went into effect. New START, which stands for strategic arms reduction treaty, calls for each country to limit its nuclear warhead arsenal to 1,550 by the year 2018.

Obama's proposals Wednesday would reduce both stockpiles by another one-third -- to roughly 1,000 warheads for each country.

After New START was ratified, Obama ordered a detailed internal analysis of U.S. nuclear needs and what it would take to deter other countries from attacking, the White House said.

"The president has determined that we can ensure our security and that of our allies and partners ... while safely pursuing up to a one-third reduction in deployed strategic nuclear warheads below the New START treaty level," the administration official said.

That kind of rhetoric is what won him the Nobel. Of course he didnt actually do anything. The first time a prize was awarded for intentions rather than actions.
He wants to reduce our nuclear arsenal so we have no advantage over the Russians. In the interest of fairness. Of course.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Obama: "I'll slash my nukes if you let me arm terrorists and perform drone strikes! Says I, Obama, ruler of America!"

Nobel Committee: "Indeed that is well intentioned! You, sir, are a man of peace! Alfred Nobel would be proud of you!"

Obama: (walks away smirking, thinking to himself) "Suckers."

 

[konradv]

What, exactly, is the benefit of reducing our nuclear arsenal?

Saves money. How many times over do we have to be able to destroy the world? We already have more operational nukes than Russia and China combined.

Nuclear weapons: Who has what?

 

[rightwinger]

What, exactly, is the benefit of reducing our nuclear arsenal?

Considering that they have not been used in over 65 years what is the benefit of over 1000 warheads?

 

[rightwinger]

'Our values won,' Obama says in Berlin - CNN.com

Obama's latest proposals come two years after New START -- a nuclear agreement between the United States and Russia -- went into effect. New START, which stands for strategic arms reduction treaty, calls for each country to limit its nuclear warhead arsenal to 1,550 by the year 2018.

Obama's proposals Wednesday would reduce both stockpiles by another one-third -- to roughly 1,000 warheads for each country.

After New START was ratified, Obama ordered a detailed internal analysis of U.S. nuclear needs and what it would take to deter other countries from attacking, the White House said.

"The president has determined that we can ensure our security and that of our allies and partners ... while safely pursuing up to a one-third reduction in deployed strategic nuclear warheads below the New START treaty level," the administration official said.

That kind of rhetoric is what won him the Nobel. Of course he didnt actually do anything. The first time a prize was awarded for intentions rather than actions.
He wants to reduce our nuclear arsenal so we have no advantage over the Russians. In the interest of fairness. Of course.

The idea is that neither one has an advantage
It is called Nuclear Proliferation

I seriously doubt if Russia could survive 1000 nuclear strikes

 

[martybegan]

What, exactly, is the benefit of reducing our nuclear arsenal?

Saves money. How many times over do we have to be able to destroy the world? We already have more operational nukes than Russia and China combined.

Nuclear weapons: Who has what?

For MAD to work you need overwhelming numbers, because once one side thinks it can pull off a first strike due to either being able to disable enough of the other sides warheads or ride out any retaliation the overall concept of MAD falls to dust.

Nuclear weapons are safer when you have too many of them on both sides.

 

[martybegan]

What, exactly, is the benefit of reducing our nuclear arsenal?

Considering that they have not been used in over 65 years what is the benefit of over 1000 warheads?

Its called MAD, or mutually assured destruction.

Read about it.

 

[konradv]

What, exactly, is the benefit of reducing our nuclear arsenal?

Saves money. How many times over do we have to be able to destroy the world? We already have more operational nukes than Russia and China combined.

Nuclear weapons: Who has what?

For MAD to work you need overwhelming numbers, because once one side thinks it can pull off a first strike due to either being able to disable enough of the other sides warheads or ride out any retaliation the overall concept of MAD falls to dust.

Nuclear weapons are safer when you have too many of them on both sides.

That would still be the case if we cut the number in half.

 

[The Rabbi]

Saves money. How many times over do we have to be able to destroy the world? We already have more operational nukes than Russia and China combined.

Nuclear weapons: Who has what?

For MAD to work you need overwhelming numbers, because once one side thinks it can pull off a first strike due to either being able to disable enough of the other sides warheads or ride out any retaliation the overall concept of MAD falls to dust.

Nuclear weapons are safer when you have too many of them on both sides.

That would still be the case if we cut the number in half.

You know that how?

 

[TemplarKormac]

What, exactly, is the benefit of reducing our nuclear arsenal?

Considering that they have not been used in over 65 years what is the benefit of over 1000 warheads?

Because it only takes one to wipe out a civilization.

 

[martybegan]

Saves money. How many times over do we have to be able to destroy the world? We already have more operational nukes than Russia and China combined.

Nuclear weapons: Who has what?

For MAD to work you need overwhelming numbers, because once one side thinks it can pull off a first strike due to either being able to disable enough of the other sides warheads or ride out any retaliation the overall concept of MAD falls to dust.

Nuclear weapons are safer when you have too many of them on both sides.

That would still be the case if we cut the number in half.

That ignores the possibilty of a first strike that is aimed at our nuclear assets and quick enough to happen prior to launch response.

By logic, wouldnt it be easier to try this if the other side only had 500 warheads as opposed to 1000?

 

[rightwinger]

What, exactly, is the benefit of reducing our nuclear arsenal?

Considering that they have not been used in over 65 years what is the benefit of over 1000 warheads?

Its called MAD, or mutually assured destruction.

Read about it.

1000 independently targeted warheads is pretty damned destructive

 

[rightwinger]

For MAD to work you need overwhelming numbers, because once one side thinks it can pull off a first strike due to either being able to disable enough of the other sides warheads or ride out any retaliation the overall concept of MAD falls to dust.

Nuclear weapons are safer when you have too many of them on both sides.

That would still be the case if we cut the number in half.

That ignores the possibilty of a first strike that is aimed at our nuclear assets and quick enough to happen prior to launch response.

By logic, wouldnt it be easier to try this if the other side only had 500 warheads as opposed to 1000?

We have been through first strike contingencies for over 50 years.

There are no surprises when nukes are launched. We have nukes at the ready in silos, subs and in the air

To be perfectly honest with ourselves. If the US has 10 nuclear warheads that the world knows we can target without fail........Nobody is going to attack us

 

[Mr Natural]

What, exactly, is the benefit of reducing our nuclear arsenal?

Considering that they have not been used in over 65 years what is the benefit of over 1000 warheads?

What are the chances that they even work anymore?

 

[Misty]

What, exactly, is the benefit of reducing our nuclear arsenal?

Considering that they have not been used in over 65 years what is the benefit of over 1000 warheads?

Just in case.

 

[martybegan]

That would still be the case if we cut the number in half.

That ignores the possibilty of a first strike that is aimed at our nuclear assets and quick enough to happen prior to launch response.

By logic, wouldnt it be easier to try this if the other side only had 500 warheads as opposed to 1000?

We have been through first strike contingencies for over 50 years.

There are no surprises when nukes are launched. We have nukes at the ready in silos, subs and in the air

To be perfectly honest with ourselves. If the US has 10 nuclear warheads that the world knows we can target without fail........Nobody is going to attack us

A country like Russia or China could absorb 10 nukes with disruption, but not collapse. China especially.

 

[Misty]

What, exactly, is the benefit of reducing our nuclear arsenal?

Considering that they have not been used in over 65 years what is the benefit of over 1000 warheads?

What are the chances that they even work anymore?

What happens if aliens invade our planet? You'd better hope they work.

 

[NLT]

What, exactly, is the benefit of reducing our nuclear arsenal?

Considering that they have not been used in over 65 years what is the benefit of over 1000 warheads?

What are the chances that they even work anymore?

Are you really that stupid?
Do you think we still have bombs from the 50's 60' and 70's in our inventory?