President seeks to get rid of all nuclear weapons

[TooTall]

“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"

Well said Mr President!

Here is what Putin said about nukes.

One of the top 10 quotes from the Russian President’s speech at the Seliger youth forum.gust 29, 2014. Russian President Vladimir Putin talks to the

Russia is going to boost its military forces and nuclear deterrence potential, Putin told the youth forum.

“Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear states. It’s not words, it is the reality,” he said. “We are strengthening our nuclear deterrence forces, we are strengthening our armed forces…We are beefing up our potential and will continue doing so.”

This is being done “not to threaten anyone, “but to feel secure,” he added.


Anything US touches turns into Libya or Iraq Top Putin quotes at youth forum RT News

 

[TooTall]

Your little "gotcha" is rather hollow....Reagan wasnt eviscerating our nuke forces remember the Peacekeeper.... Obama is.

Reagan was advocating eliminating ALL nuclear weapons during the heart of the Cold War

Obama does not face a nuclear threat anywhere near what Reagan faced

Reagan was advocating NEGOTIATING the elimination of nukes with other nuclear nations. That is not the same as unilateral disarmament of US nukes.

 

[Spoonman]

I get amazed by some people who are saying that the US should not get rid of nukes.
Why not? It are only useless and dangerous weapons. We are never going to use those wepons, so why do we need nukes.

We have produced tens of thousands of nukes and platforms to carry them over the last 60 years

None were used and none will ever be used. Why not have a hundred nukes that we never use instead of ten thousand that we never use?

now if Russia and china only thought like that we'd have a plan

Russia is willing to cut down on nukes. China has no intercontinental threat

If the US has 100 nukes that they can deliver with high precision

Who would attack us?

yea, Obama believed Russia was willing to cut down too. he made the first move, they laughed in his face. Russia is willing to cut down on obsolete, smaller nukes they would never use anyway. China is slowly, quietly catching up to us.

Regan dealt from a position of power, and he got results. Obama has always put up a weak, insecure posture and gets taken advantage of. Obama gets a peace prize for nuclear nonproliferation and international relations, especially the muslim world. nothing at all had happened on the nonproliferation front and the muslim world is probably in a worse state than ever.

 

[rightwinger]

I get amazed by some people who are saying that the US should not get rid of nukes.
Why not? It are only useless and dangerous weapons. We are never going to use those wepons, so why do we need nukes.

We have produced tens of thousands of nukes and platforms to carry them over the last 60 years

None were used and none will ever be used. Why not have a hundred nukes that we never use instead of ten thousand that we never use?

Do you understand that nukes are proven deterrents to war? The less nuclear capacity we have the weaker we are?

Our military is stronger than the next ten nations combined

If we had 100 nukes that we could deliver with precision. What nation would dare attack us?

First of all its not only about us being attacked. If we lessen our capacity then the ballance of power between good and evil in the world changes. We are the good guys. You do un dr stand we are the good guys, right?

Move on Dr Strangelove

 

[rightwinger]

I get amazed by some people who are saying that the US should not get rid of nukes.
Why not? It are only useless and dangerous weapons. We are never going to use those wepons, so why do we need nukes.

We have produced tens of thousands of nukes and platforms to carry them over the last 60 years

None were used and none will ever be used. Why not have a hundred nukes that we never use instead of ten thousand that we never use?

now if Russia and china only thought like that we'd have a plan

Russia is willing to cut down on nukes. China has no intercontinental threat

If the US has 100 nukes that they can deliver with high precision

Who would attack us?

yea, Obama believed Russia was willing to cut down too. he made the first move, they laughed in his face. Russia is willing to cut down on obsolete, smaller nukes they would never use anyway. China is slowly, quietly catching up to us.

Regan dealt from a position of power, and he got results. Obama has always put up a weak, insecure posture and gets taken advantage of. Obama gets a peace prize for nuclear nonproliferation and international relations, especially the muslim world. nothing at all had happened on the nonproliferation front and the muslim world is probably in a worse state than ever.

Guess what.

We are not going to attack Russia and they are not going to attack us

We get the same result with 7000 nukes or 700

 

[boedicca]

“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"

Well said Mr President!

What could possibly go wrong?

Oh yeah...North Korea, Iran, Pooty Poot, ISIS....

 

[rightwinger]

“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"

Well said Mr President!

What could possibly go wrong?

Oh yeah...North Korea, Iran, Pooty Poot, ISIS....

We had ten times the nuclear weapons to worry about when Reagan made that that statement

 

[boedicca]

“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"

Well said Mr President!

What could possibly go wrong?

Oh yeah...North Korea, Iran, Pooty Poot, ISIS....

We had ten times the nuclear weapons to worry about when Reagan made that that statement

Well, Reagan wasn't a feckless wuss who was afraid to defend our country...and he never would have said he didn't have a policy...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Successful, troll thread was successful.

Nice rule enforcement mods

 

[Spoonman]

I get amazed by some people who are saying that the US should not get rid of nukes.
Why not? It are only useless and dangerous weapons. We are never going to use those wepons, so why do we need nukes.

We have produced tens of thousands of nukes and platforms to carry them over the last 60 years

None were used and none will ever be used. Why not have a hundred nukes that we never use instead of ten thousand that we never use?

now if Russia and china only thought like that we'd have a plan

Russia is willing to cut down on nukes. China has no intercontinental threat

If the US has 100 nukes that they can deliver with high precision

Who would attack us?

yea, Obama believed Russia was willing to cut down too. he made the first move, they laughed in his face. Russia is willing to cut down on obsolete, smaller nukes they would never use anyway. China is slowly, quietly catching up to us.

Regan dealt from a position of power, and he got results. Obama has always put up a weak, insecure posture and gets taken advantage of. Obama gets a peace prize for nuclear nonproliferation and international relations, especially the muslim world. nothing at all had happened on the nonproliferation front and the muslim world is probably in a worse state than ever.

Guess what.

We are not going to attack Russia and they are not going to attack us

We get the same result with 7000 nukes or 700

guess what, we are powerless to stop Russia's aggression and expansion. even with 100 nukes. it ain't about nukes. in the real game, Obama is losing ground. Obama is crippling America.

 

[rightwinger]

“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"

Well said Mr President!

What could possibly go wrong?

Oh yeah...North Korea, Iran, Pooty Poot, ISIS....

We had ten times the nuclear weapons to worry about when Reagan made that that statement

Well, Reagan wasn't a feckless wuss who was afraid to defend our country...and he never would have said he didn't have a policy...

What was Reagan's policy in Beirut?

Cut and run?

I get amazed by some people who are saying that the US should not get rid of nukes.
Why not? It are only useless and dangerous weapons. We are never going to use those wepons, so why do we need nukes.

We have produced tens of thousands of nukes and platforms to carry them over the last 60 years

None were used and none will ever be used. Why not have a hundred nukes that we never use instead of ten thousand that we never use?

now if Russia and china only thought like that we'd have a plan

Russia is willing to cut down on nukes. China has no intercontinental threat

If the US has 100 nukes that they can deliver with high precision

Who would attack us?

yea, Obama believed Russia was willing to cut down too. he made the first move, they laughed in his face. Russia is willing to cut down on obsolete, smaller nukes they would never use anyway. China is slowly, quietly catching up to us.

Regan dealt from a position of power, and he got results. Obama has always put up a weak, insecure posture and gets taken advantage of. Obama gets a peace prize for nuclear nonproliferation and international relations, especially the muslim world. nothing at all had happened on the nonproliferation front and the muslim world is probably in a worse state than ever.

Guess what.

We are not going to attack Russia and they are not going to attack us

We get the same result with 7000 nukes or 700

guess what, we are powerless to stop Russia's aggression and expansion. even with 100 nukes. it ain't about nukes. in the real game, Obama is losing ground. Obama is crippling America.

How successful was Russia in stopping our aggression in Iraq?

neither country is willing to stand up to the other

 

[rightwinger]

Successful, troll thread was successful.

Nice rule enforcement mods

Some wine with your whine?

 

[boedicca]

“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"

Well said Mr President!

What could possibly go wrong?

Oh yeah...North Korea, Iran, Pooty Poot, ISIS....

We had ten times the nuclear weapons to worry about when Reagan made that that statement

Well, Reagan wasn't a feckless wuss who was afraid to defend our country...and he never would have said he didn't have a policy...

What was Reagan's policy in Beirut?

Cut and run?

I get amazed by some people who are saying that the US should not get rid of nukes.
Why not? It are only useless and dangerous weapons. We are never going to use those wepons, so why do we need nukes.

We have produced tens of thousands of nukes and platforms to carry them over the last 60 years

None were used and none will ever be used. Why not have a hundred nukes that we never use instead of ten thousand that we never use?

now if Russia and china only thought like that we'd have a plan

Russia is willing to cut down on nukes. China has no intercontinental threat

If the US has 100 nukes that they can deliver with high precision

Who would attack us?

yea, Obama believed Russia was willing to cut down too. he made the first move, they laughed in his face. Russia is willing to cut down on obsolete, smaller nukes they would never use anyway. China is slowly, quietly catching up to us.

Regan dealt from a position of power, and he got results. Obama has always put up a weak, insecure posture and gets taken advantage of. Obama gets a peace prize for nuclear nonproliferation and international relations, especially the muslim world. nothing at all had happened on the nonproliferation front and the muslim world is probably in a worse state than ever.

Guess what.

We are not going to attack Russia and they are not going to attack us

We get the same result with 7000 nukes or 700

guess what, we are powerless to stop Russia's aggression and expansion. even with 100 nukes. it ain't about nukes. in the real game, Obama is losing ground. Obama is crippling America.

How successful was Russia in stopping our aggression in Iraq?

neither country is willing to stand up to the other

It wasn't to declare combatants who attacked Americans "criminals" with Miranda Rights.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Successful, troll thread was successful.

Nice rule enforcement mods

Some wine with your whine?

Wine is for pussies. Man up sissy boi

 

[Spoonman]

“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"

Well said Mr President!

What could possibly go wrong?

Oh yeah...North Korea, Iran, Pooty Poot, ISIS....

We had ten times the nuclear weapons to worry about when Reagan made that that statement

Well, Reagan wasn't a feckless wuss who was afraid to defend our country...and he never would have said he didn't have a policy...

What was Reagan's policy in Beirut?

Cut and run?

I get amazed by some people who are saying that the US should not get rid of nukes.
Why not? It are only useless and dangerous weapons. We are never going to use those wepons, so why do we need nukes.

We have produced tens of thousands of nukes and platforms to carry them over the last 60 years

None were used and none will ever be used. Why not have a hundred nukes that we never use instead of ten thousand that we never use?

now if Russia and china only thought like that we'd have a plan

Russia is willing to cut down on nukes. China has no intercontinental threat

If the US has 100 nukes that they can deliver with high precision

Who would attack us?

yea, Obama believed Russia was willing to cut down too. he made the first move, they laughed in his face. Russia is willing to cut down on obsolete, smaller nukes they would never use anyway. China is slowly, quietly catching up to us.

Regan dealt from a position of power, and he got results. Obama has always put up a weak, insecure posture and gets taken advantage of. Obama gets a peace prize for nuclear nonproliferation and international relations, especially the muslim world. nothing at all had happened on the nonproliferation front and the muslim world is probably in a worse state than ever.

Guess what.

We are not going to attack Russia and they are not going to attack us

We get the same result with 7000 nukes or 700

guess what, we are powerless to stop Russia's aggression and expansion. even with 100 nukes. it ain't about nukes. in the real game, Obama is losing ground. Obama is crippling America.

How successful was Russia in stopping our aggression in Iraq?

neither country is willing to stand up to the other

Russia was never really interested in stopping our aggression in Iraq. we never planned on making it part of our empire. Russia has been very successful at lessening our footprint in Europe however.

 

[Clementine]

Obama is probably willing to give ours up first in hopes that the rest of the world will follow. We should insist that the hostile nations go first and it's downright stupid to even consider reducing our nuclear arsenal before that.

 

[Spoonman]

Obama is probably willing to give ours up first in hopes that the rest of the world will follow. We should insist that the hostile nations go first and it's downright stupid to even consider reducing our nuclear arsenal before that.

Obama has already given up to Russia significantly twice and gotten nothing in return.

 

[Crystalclear]

I disagree but I agree with the next post you made.

I 100% believe that the advent of nuclear weapons has averted MANY world wide disasters.

Well, I believe the nukes can be helpful in preventing wars, but the weapons should not be used to just throw around when we're done with the Muslims.

 

[rightwinger]

“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"

Well said Mr President!

What could possibly go wrong?

Oh yeah...North Korea, Iran, Pooty Poot, ISIS....

We had ten times the nuclear weapons to worry about when Reagan made that that statement

Well, Reagan wasn't a feckless wuss who was afraid to defend our country...and he never would have said he didn't have a policy...

What was Reagan's policy in Beirut?

Cut and run?

I get amazed by some people who are saying that the US should not get rid of nukes.
Why not? It are only useless and dangerous weapons. We are never going to use those wepons, so why do we need nukes.

We have produced tens of thousands of nukes and platforms to carry them over the last 60 years

None were used and none will ever be used. Why not have a hundred nukes that we never use instead of ten thousand that we never use?

now if Russia and china only thought like that we'd have a plan

Russia is willing to cut down on nukes. China has no intercontinental threat

If the US has 100 nukes that they can deliver with high precision

Who would attack us?

yea, Obama believed Russia was willing to cut down too. he made the first move, they laughed in his face. Russia is willing to cut down on obsolete, smaller nukes they would never use anyway. China is slowly, quietly catching up to us.

Regan dealt from a position of power, and he got results. Obama has always put up a weak, insecure posture and gets taken advantage of. Obama gets a peace prize for nuclear nonproliferation and international relations, especially the muslim world. nothing at all had happened on the nonproliferation front and the muslim world is probably in a worse state than ever.

Guess what.

We are not going to attack Russia and they are not going to attack us

We get the same result with 7000 nukes or 700

guess what, we are powerless to stop Russia's aggression and expansion. even with 100 nukes. it ain't about nukes. in the real game, Obama is losing ground. Obama is crippling America.

How successful was Russia in stopping our aggression in Iraq?

neither country is willing to stand up to the other

It wasn't to declare combatants who attacked Americans "criminals" with Miranda Rights.

What rights do they have ?

A right to be tortured?

 

[rightwinger]

Obama is probably willing to give ours up first in hopes that the rest of the world will follow. We should insist that the hostile nations go first and it's downright stupid to even consider reducing our nuclear arsenal before that.

There is mutual verification of weapons destruction

We have already reduced from 30,000 to 7,000
We plan to get down to 1500

Makes you feel safe doesn't it?