More Concessions? Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 15 times

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 09:46 AM by Theomi

Originally posted by jdub297

(I'd be willing to make a reasonable bet that 75% of the ATS members do not know what "M.A.D." is, without resorting to Google, Wikipedia, or YouTube)

jw

[edit on 21-9-2009 by jdub297]

Easy one, Mutual asured destruction = M.A.D
No google, wiki or youtube...
Everyone knows that... Dont they?

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 09:47 AM by jdub297

Originally posted by jimmyx
obama still has 130,000 troops in iraq, adding 30,000 more in afghanistan,

Our forces in Iraq have been withdrawn from cities to bases. We're basically mopping up as we draw down.

In Afghanistan, generals have been asking for more troops and equipment for months. They've gotten neither.

Obama SAYS he'll send additional troops, but NONE are 'on the way'.
Thus far, Obama's words don't match his actions, except where unions are involved. Maybe, if the military unionized, ... .

The reality "on the ground," is that Obama has turned his back on our soldiers and allies:

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.

yeah, right...he's a real pacifist

Right.

jw

[edit on 21-9-2009 by jdub297]

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 09:50 AM by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jdub297
Thus far, Obama's words don't match his actions, except where unions are involved.

This is not true. He promised to do just this!

And what concessions are you speaking of? How can keeping a promise be considered a concession?

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 09:55 AM by suicydking

"[The nuclear arms race is like] two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five."

"Every thinking person fears nuclear war and every technological nation plans for it. Everyone knows it's madness, and every country has an excuse."

-Carl Sagan

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 10:07 AM by Jenna

Originally posted by jdub297
M.A.D. is mad, undoubtedly. But the threat of an effective response should be recognized as a real and valuable deterrent (just like a "Beware of Dog," or "These Premisies Protected By ... ." sign is), and should thus not be discarded without regard to the very real remaining threats.

(I'd be willing to make a reasonable bet that 75% of the ATS members do not know what "M.A.D." is, without resorting to Google, Wikipedia, or YouTube)

First I have to confess I didn't recognize the acronym and had to look it up. I knew what it was once the search results came up, but the acronym just didn't click at first.

I agree. As much as some would like to pretend otherwise, there are some very real threats out there. We haven't yet achieved a Utopian world where we can be defenseless and never have to worry about it. Until we do manage to pull off a Utopian society, we have to be able to defend ourselves and sometimes just the threat of what we could retaliate with is enough to deter an attack. Very much like the "Beware of Dog" signs.

Edit: fixed the italics tag

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Jenna]

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 10:14 AM by aravoth

Nuclear weapons are without a doubt mankind's most insane creation. In the entire history of the world, no species has become so insane as to threaten the existence off all life on the planet in the name of "protection", except us.

Nuclear weapons, and pointing nuclear weapons at major population centers is madness, and undeniable proof that there is something severely wrong with the human race.

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 10:19 AM by 12.21.12

You guys do realize that in most cases of disarmament that the stockpiles are most often sold to other nations right?

Can anybody say for sure what will happen to US weapons if disarmed?

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 10:27 AM by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 12.21.12
You guys do realize that in most cases of disarmament that the stockpiles are most often sold to other nations right?

Do you really believe that?
No, seriously?

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 10:32 AM by 12.21.12

reply to post by buddhasystem

uhm....yes I do.

I haven't lived under a rock for the last ten years.

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 10:34 AM by jdub297

reply to post by aravoth

pointing nuclear weapons at major population centers is madness, and undeniable proof that there is something severely wrong with the human race.

Mankind at every stage of his evolution has been violent, especially toward those perceived as weaker and vulnerable.

Substitute "UAVs" or "suicide bombers" or "archery battalion" or "cannon" or "catapult" for "nuclear weapons," and you're still left with the fact that barbarism has existed and will continue to exist throughout every version of the "human race."

If you've taken ANY steps to protect yourself, your family, your property, or those of your neighbors; then you've adopted a potentially belligerent, and certainly selfish, posture.

As long as others seek to impose their will upon the weakest and (perceived) defenseless, we will live with brutality.

And your point is?

jw

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 10:36 AM by Mak Manto

I'm not against getting rid of all of our weapons, or our missile defense programs, but nuclear weapons are too dangerous.

Without a doubt, if a nuclear weapon is used against a country, it could ignite a World War III.

These weapons are far too dangerous. There is a reason why no nation has them used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 10:38 AM by jdub297

Originally posted by 12.21.12
You guys do realize that in most cases of disarmament that the stockpiles are most often sold to other nations right?

Or stolen! Witness the recent sale, by rogue military, of Russian S-300 missiles and shipment on board the Arctic Sea.

jw

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 10:40 AM by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 12.21.12
reply to post by buddhasystem

uhm....yes I do.

I haven't lived under a rock for the last ten years.

OK then, it will be easy for you to list all the transaction where nuclear stockpiles of one country would be sold to another. I'm all ears.

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 10:43 AM by jdub297

reply to post by Mak Manto

Without a doubt, if a nuclear weapon is used against a country, it could ignite a World War III.

"Could," maybe. Likely? Nope.

WWIII will begin with a "proxy" war that is not quickly concluded. It will escalate until tactical nukes and EMP devices are employed in the battle theater. After that, it won't really matter.

jw

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 10:48 AM by 12.21.12

reply to post by buddhasystem

Uh no it wouldn't and if I knew of these so called instances it would probably take several pages to write.

Yeah, we don't need any nukes, lets just hand them over to the largest goup of criminals in history to have them disposed of.

It's like the cop takes someones drugs and says he's gonna get rid of them and never issues a citation. Sure, he will.

The looting of the United States assets is imminent. I have been watching it happen since 9/11.

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 10:51 AM by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 12.21.12
reply to post by buddhasystem

Uh no it wouldn't and if I knew of these so called instances it would probably take several pages to write.

So your blanket statement was completely unsupported by facts and essentially a fabrication. Great way to post, my friend!

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 10:51 AM by Dermo

reply to post by jdub297

Yo Jdub.. here we are, arguing again lol. Im going to start calling you Mr Concessions from now on. I think you really dislike the idea of the US being nice on the world stage as opposed to making enemies.. but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I think Obama is right. Lead by example. "Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't work in a world full of superpowers. The US has lost so much of its clout on the world stage and it needs to get back some respect/build up relations in order to counteract that. But thats just an opinion of an outsider.

So if the US gets rid of 50% of its nukes, that means they can only destroy the world how many times? Instead of of twice that.. Come on, its not that much of a concession.

Also, how much does it cost to keep all those thousands & thousands of nukes the US has? Nice little money saver there. Russia will probably jump at the chance to save money and look good as well.

if Obama keeps carrying on like this, the US will start to look like it cares even a tiny tiny bit about the people outside it. Soon enough, Americans will actually be able to go places outside of North America and talk to people without the natives rolling their eyes and muttering "stupid f***ing yanks" under their breath

Remember that the US is going to have to start giving large parts of its empire away over the next couple of years because ***NEWSFLASH*** Its cant afford to keep it!!!. These "Concessions" are no more than cost cuts while saving face.

Then again, if you don't like Obama, its a good reason to give out about him

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 10:55 AM by 12.21.12

reply to post by buddhasystem

Sorry my friend. But I did not just crawl out from under a rock. If everyone waited for the government to do as they are supposed to and have these war criminals arrested and put on trial, nothing would get done. So....welcome to today.

Why does Gordon Brown care anyways?

Let's wait and see if Israel will lay down their nukes and then let's talk.

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 10:58 AM by centurion1211

Originally posted by Mak Manto
I agree.

This is a good move. Nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous. We need to be pulling away from these kinds of weapons.

No one wins in a nuclear war.

Simple question requiring what should be simple logic to answer:

What happens if no other country with nukes gets rid of theirs just because the U.S. does?

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 11:02 AM by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 12.21.12
reply to post by buddhasystem

Sorry my friend. But I did not just crawl out from under a rock.

You mentioned that rock twice but it doesn't add anything at all to the substance of the discourse here. You didn't provide any facts in support of your pretty sensational statement about US selling its stockpile of nukes to a third party, and I called you out on this. But of course you have your rock and all.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^