More Concessions? Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 15 times

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 11:08 AM by rtcctr

Why is America so arrogant

We went into Iraq because they supposely had WMD's

America has one of, if not the biggest arsenal of them on the planet but noone else can have them, Im sorry but this does not compute

I for one would like every country on the planet to have the same ammount ... noone will be dumb enough to use them because everyone knows if one is fired, all will be and game over for the human race.

A weapon is a tool in the hand of a madman; lets lock up all the madmen on the planet and it will become the tool it was designed for.

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 11:33 AM by 12.21.12

reply to post by buddhasystem

Originally posted 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.

You did not call me out on anything. Unless you know something that I don't. Do I think they are selling? Sure do. But looting would probably be a more appropriate term.

Do I trust the current administration to destroy billions of dollars and hundreds of years worth of research worth of nuclear stockpiles in the name of peace? No.

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 11:37 AM by Mak Manto

Originally posted 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

So you agree that there is a chance that using such a weapon could ignite such a war.

Why take the chance?

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 11:40 AM by Mak Manto

Originally posted 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?

It's something we should try. I'm alarmed by the number of militarists who want more nuclear weapons or want to keep the number we have.

If you remember, several months ago, Obama stated that the government would not go against the Outer Space Treaty and would not try to develop weapons in space.

We need disarmament, people. The United States is not king of the world. We all live here. One country cannot enforce the policies of all the nations.

Nuclear weapons have to be cut drastically.

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 11:47 AM by DevilJin

It is a stupid idea any way you look at it realistically. It excludes the use of biological weapons, for instance. Even a small country like Pakistan can make noise now that they have nuclear arms. Or a smaller country like Israel. I wonder if this is a part of the whole global agenda or something? Or it could be a ploy by the U.S. gov. to weaken its enemies. Either way, it is a heated contest of "who goes first" in disarming and for the sake of a nation (Russia, China, etc.), I would not trust this U.S. led idea. Perhaps, it is a part of centralizing global power to the U.N.?

[edit on 21-9-2009 by DevilJin]

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 11:56 AM by buddhasystem

Originally posted by 12.21.12
You did not call me out on anything. Unless you know something that I don't.

I'm starting to believe the latter is the case.

Do I think they are selling? Sure do. But looting would probably be a more appropriate term.

Oh, I see, it gets even more interesting! It's looting now. Of course, you didn't provide a squat of evidence in that case, either. How about decommissioned nukes are secretly traded to Alpha Centauri to help them ward of the imminent attack from Zur? Because I'm pretty sure it's already happening. I haven't been living under the rock, you know

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 12:18 PM by maybereal11

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by Southern Guardian

Exactly.
They arent saying 'disarm', they are saying reduce.

Really?

What does Obama mean when he says in plain English:

... his goal of abolishing nuclear weapons altogether ... .
?

Deny ignorance.

jw

Well as long as we are going to "Deny Ignorance" maybe we should include the next few words in your excerpt...

....his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.

Last time I checked...Obama wasn't a European official..

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 12:34 PM by suicydking

A little perspective:

The US built more than 70,000 nuclear warheads between 1945 & 1990 at a cost of 6 trillion dollars.

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 12:37 PM by DevilJin

Originally posted by suicydking
A little perspective:

The US built more than 70,000 nuclear warheads between 1945 & 1990 at a cost of 6 trillion dollars.

That is insane. Bigger insane spending have happened though. 6 trillion could have gone into space exploration or (whispers) to benefit the people.

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 12:41 PM by jdub297

reply to post by buddhasystem

Please enlighten our Secretary of Defense.

Moscow, Oct. 31, 2008

Russia insisted its nuclear weapons are secure, and rejected the allegations by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates that large amounts of Russian nuclear weapons had been stolen or misplaced.

US defense secretary Robert Gates has said that some Russian nuclear weapons from the former Soviet arsenal might not be fully accounted for.
“What worries me are the tens of thousands of old nuclear mines, nuclear artillery shells and so on, because the reality is the Russians themselves probably don’t have any idea how many of those they have or, potentially, where they are,” he added.

Negotiated ( by George Bush) and signed in 1991, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) is scheduled to expire in December, 2009. Under the accord the US and Russia have significantly reduced their number of nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles.

www.thaindian.com...

Of course, this ignores the fact that even without sales of "finished product," nuclear materials and technology are trading hands.

Never heard of "Barksdale" or "A. Q. Khan?"

American and international investigators say that they have found the electronic blueprints for an advanced nuclear weapon on computers that belonged to the nuclear smuggling network run by Abdul Qadeer Khan.

www.nytimes.com...

Even a simple 3-word search on Google will reveal 10 million hits for these stories and others. Even ATS has threads on this.

Most importantly, and back on topic, note that "START 1991" was negotiated under George H.W. Bush, and resulted in significantly reduced nuclear stockpiles and delivery systems!

You don't get results like that from capitulation and unilateral concessions.

Are YOU "under a rock?"

jw

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 12:41 PM by suicydking

Originally posted by DevilJin

Originally posted by suicydking
A little perspective:

The US built more than 70,000 nuclear warheads between 1945 & 1990 at a cost of 6 trillion dollars.

That is insane. Bigger insane spending have happened though. 6 trillion could have gone into space exploration or (whispers) to benefit the people.

We could have built 3 warheads for every nation on earth and had enough cash left over to install solar water heaters in every home in the US.

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 12:43 PM by maybereal11

reply to post by Agit8dChop

Bottom line is that many of the manufacturer's of Nuclear Weapons constitute the heart of the "Military industrial" complex that Eisenhower warned us about all those years ago.

While the United states currently has more Nuclear Weapons than any other country on the planet COMBINED...We have about 10,000 intact warheads, with about 6000 that remain active/operational.......even the most vigilant nations of the world have come to realize the glaringly obvious...

At some point...more is not better...it just costs you more money.

But hey whatever...It's Obama right...it doesn't matter what he does...let's slam him! Never mind that folks like GW significantly reduced our Nuclear Aresenal...those darn republican peacniks!!

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 12:49 PM by jdub297

reply to post by Mak Manto

So you agree that there is a chance that using such a weapon could ignite such a war.

Why take the chance?

I agree that ANYTHING "could" happen. Monkeys could fly out your ... nevermind.

Posing such a hypothetical as "a country" and "a weapon" could "start [something]" is absolutely useless as a means of proof, or even a point of discussion.

These threads would be shorter and better if some members would just go back to their XBox or Wii, please, and let grownups talk about things they cannot comprehend.

jw

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 12:54 PM by 12.21.12

reply to post by buddhasystem

You are trying to convince me that the Obama Administration is ready to scrap the most intelligent and wealthy nuclear program of our time.

Sorry, I do not buy it.

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 12:55 PM by jdub297

reply to post by Mak Manto

We need disarmament, people. The United States is not king of the world. We all live here. One country cannot enforce the policies of all the nations.

Nuclear weapons have to be cut drastically.

Then you must just adore George Bush and the (Rebublican-led) 102nd Congress, who negotiated and ratified S.T.A.R.T. 1991 and drastically reduced nuclear warheads and delivery systems!

Smart.

jw

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 01:00 PM by jdub297

reply to post by maybereal11

maybe we should include the next few words in your excerpt...
....his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.

Last time I checked...Obama wasn't a European official.

And no American MSM will put Obama in a bad light.

Some of the best reporting on Amercian policy comes from foreign officials and press

You won't hear negative reports about Obama if you choose not to listen.

Living in willful ignorance doesn't make the bad things go away.

jw

[edit on 21-9-2009 by jdub297]

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 01:05 PM by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I swear folks want things to be as they were during the cold war.

And why not? This country and our people prospered in ways never seen before or since during the cold war. The constant, unending drive to outdo the USSR built the American middle class, just as concessionary bullcrap from Jimmy Carter-minded democrats destroyed the American middle class. Personally, I'd love a second cold war because it would mean we had a chance to recalim past glory and past prosperity... instead all I'm seeing are actions (like this one by Obama) which will destroy us further. A sad, sad, sad day further marking the saddest day in American history, Election Day 2008.

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 01:05 PM by jdub297

reply to post by suicydking

A little perspective:

The US built more than 70,000 nuclear warheads between 1945 & 1990 at a cost of 6 trillion dollars.

A little more complete perspective:

Under START 1991, George H. W. Bush began drastic reductions of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. (Why do you think Russia had to dismantle the SS-23, and replace it with the Iskander SS-26? YOU DON'T KNOW, do you? Or just don't want to say it.)

jw

[edit on 21-9-2009 by jdub297]

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 01:12 PM by buddhasystem

Originally posted by jdub297
You don't get results like that from capitulation and unilateral concessions.

You seem to be using words without regard to their meaning or the context.
We didn't capitulate and we didn't make concessions to any party.

reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 01:28 PM by Beausant91

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by suicydking

A little perspective:

The US built more than 70,000 nuclear warheads between 1945 & 1990 at a cost of 6 trillion dollars.

A little more complete perspective:

Under START 1991, George H. W. Bush began drastic reductions of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. (Why do you think Russia had to dismantle the SS-23, and replace it with the Iskander SS-26? YOU DON'T KNOW, do you? Or just don't want to say it.)

jw

[edit on 21-9-2009 by jdub297]

Man you need to get your head out of well you know were so what if he doesnt know you dont know everything this is why we discuss to learn new things to increase our knowledge and yes he might not have known that quaint little fact but at least hes not being smarmy and arrogant about his "intelligence" more some general knowledge facts, I came on here to hopefully learn more of the situation from each of the different perspectives maybe you need to step back and try to help people futher themselves rather then hindering them to give yourself an ego boost

Apologies for the rant but i felt it necessary to point out

Best Wishes Beausant91