It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama wants nukes cut by 80%

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by sunny_2008ny
 


I didnt write That! ?
.. But I do agree, I dont think there has been any nuclear testing for a while.




posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 



I didnt write That! ?


Sorry ! Quoted the wrong person



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by sunny_2008ny
 





Sorry ! Quoted the wrong person

Yes, and I answered your question, since you obviously were directing it at me.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Riviera
And another question....HOW THE HELL DO YOU GET AN ARSENAL OF 5000+ Nukes....with just TWO Countries?!
[edit on 4-2-2009 by Riviera]


To wipe out the enemy if part of your arsenal is destroyed in the enemy's first strike. You need some redundancy. Let's say you wanna destroy at least 100 enemy targets even if part of your arsenal is destroyed. So you need 1000 nukes to get that effect even if 90% is wiped out.

And then there are the nukes for submarines and the nukes for bombers as well as the ICBM's. You know it takes some time for a bomber or a submarine to get there. So you nuke first with ICBMs and a few hours later with bombers and a few days later with SLBMs. So you wanna be able to nuke your enemy at least three times, from land, air and sea. And probably in the future you wanna have some kinda nukes launchable from space too!

And I think that this figure also counts in tactical nukes. You know those nice mouth-watering little nukes that are sweet as candy but too small to destroy strategic targets like enemy cities or military bases. You just drop them on a tank column and presto! No more tank column. (No more surrounding countryside either, but hey, you elected the politicians, didn't you?)

I am too lazy to check this out but I remember that most of these warheads are actually tactical.

This whole "nucular" thing is such total insanity it makes me wonder if we actually have a future as a race. I wonder if this is the test of whether you are smart enough to go into outer space. The galaxy is full of planets with radioactive ruins? Or maybe humans are the only ones stupid and evil enough to do this?



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   





If the US reduced its nuclear weapons by 80% it would save roughly twenty billion dollars a year.

Its a shame we cant give that to the schools that are being closed because of lack of state funds. But I suppose we need to have the ability to nuke every major city on the planet 10-times over.

Thats whats really important.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by A NeWorlDisorder]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by stikkinikki
 


"There is that theory of the the Soviet communists playing long ball and pretending to go away. I think it's hogwash but some still believe I am sure."

Read Gorbachev's last speech to the Party...

People have been propagandized into being dismissive of people who would warn them of the communist threat.

"Communism is dead" "Long live Socialism"



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
until the last one is gone, the job isn't finished.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Quite personally being the worlds police force we shouldn't get rid of any of our nuclear weapons, but to have more. If we are going to play world police force we ought to have the don't mess with us capabilities 100 times over. And why not stop there, let get nuclear patriot missiles and we have depleted uranium casing bullet rounds. If MAD is the way we need to go to protect ourselves and let people sleep save at night then so be it. There should be one missile for every missile the Russia, China, Pakistan and any other country that may launch one at us. Why destroy our arsenal and weaken our ability to destroy the world.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by bigvig316
 


I hope you are being sarcastic man. We don't need to be the worlds "police force". While I do think we have the responsibility of providing humanitarian relief to people of much lesser fortunes, we do not have the right to pillage other peoples land for resources. That's exactly what we've been doing and that's exactly why the world has been so mad at us for the last decade or so.

I would say that 80% is merely a start and that over a 10 year period that 80% should turn into 100% the world over. They are outdated and absolutely not needed. Imagine where we would be as a society if we stopped spending all this money on death and destruction. I hope one day people move towards that direction.

WWCAD......That is f'n priceless. Funny stuff. The Cap'n is cool, but he absolutely screams of propaganda.




top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join