More Concessions? Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 15 times


reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 02:36 PM by Mak Manto
reply to post by centurion1211


And what if we're right? What if keeping these weapons will lead to the destruction of the planet?

What if we have an aggressive president in the future that believes the only way to remove a threat is to destroy them with nuclear weapons...?


reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 02:44 PM by centurion1211
Originally posted by Mak Manto
reply to post by centurion1211


And what if we're right? What if keeping these weapons will lead to the destruction of the planet?

What if we have an aggressive president in the future that believes the only way to remove a threat is to destroy them with nuclear weapons...?


History shows over and over again that your scenario is the least likely to happen, while mine has in fact happened many times ...

That said, it is your president that currently comes the closest to wanting all power in his hands - and then what would he do?



reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 02:46 PM by jdub297
reply to post by Mak Manto
What if we have an aggressive president in the future that believes the only way to remove a threat is to destroy them with nuclear weapons...?


Then, he'll build and use them.

Obama's concessions will leave us more vulnerable, therefore more likely to suffer foreign aggression, and thus more likely to either capitulate (again) altogether, or retaliate with undeniable force.

Is THAT what you want?

jw

[edit on 21-9-2009 by jdub297]


reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 02:53 PM by DevilJin
Originally posted by Mak Manto
reply to post by centurion1211


And what if we're right? What if keeping these weapons will lead to the destruction of the planet?

What if we have an aggressive president in the future that believes the only way to remove a threat is to destroy them with nuclear weapons...?


It will never happen. Presidents are elected by those in power - not its people, so there will never be an "aggressive" president. There are no enemies unless making them out to be one is beneficial to distract from the real enemy. For instance, North Korea needs to be taken down for the sake of helping its citizens but Israel is more concerned with Iran, which in turn, allows those behind the scene to do the real dirty work.

It takes a lot of preparation and strategic planning to do something that catastrophic. You have to take in the outcome of it. You risk the world turning on you or at least your own people turning on you. You risk leaving any economic resources the enemy had inaccessible due to the effect of the bomb.

And lastly, NO ONE is that stupid. You are talking about a devastating effect on the world. You can easily kill millions by releasing a man-made virus, or releasing any biological weapon on a subway or in a town. Or you can destroy an enemy through war and make them unable to redevelop into a 1st world country. Thus, they are always in chaos that way. WW3 will be enough to bring about the global society some people want to see.


reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 03:11 PM by Avenginggecko
reply to post by jdub297


More vulnerable? To what countries??? Let's say that the US does drastically cut its warheads to 1500. How does that make us more vulnerable? We'd still have far more than China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea combined.

Realistically, any government that uses a nuclear warhead aggressively against another nation is signing its own death warrant, and if a nuclear war somehow became extensive enough to overwhelm the US military, every person on this planet would be dead anyway.

In my opinion one country only needs enought warheads to ensure the destruction of one other country to deter them all.

Eventually, no one should have nuclear warheads. Each one is basically an instant holocaust.


reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 03:20 PM by buddhasystem
Originally posted by Avenginggecko
reply to post by jdub297


More vulnerable? To what countries??? Let's say that the US does drastically cut its warheads to 1500. How does that make us more vulnerable?


Yeah, I still haven't heard a half-reasonable answer to this very relevant question that you pose. Only screams of "capitulation" and "concession".


reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 03:39 PM by OmegaPoint
reply to post by Agit8dChop


I agree, this is good news. Ultimately, nobody needs to have a nuclear arsenal, and it will make the nonproliferation treaty that much easier to enforce.


reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 03:54 PM by crimvelvet
reply to post by sickofitall2012




This kind of stance is what got us attacked in the first place. First he attacks the CIA for keeping us safe, than takes away our capabilities to shoot down a missile strike, now he wants to disarm us? I swear, it's like he wants us to be attacked again.


Remember Obama's Mama worked for the Ford Foundation, you know one of the group who wants the whole world ruled by the Central bankers and Corporate Elite. Of course they want the USA and all of her citizens completely disarmed. Royalty has always disarmed the serfs and slaves and made it illegal for them to handle weapons.

A weapon is a peace keeper, just ask the disarmed Australians who are having problems with roaming bands of Thugs Some are "just teenage hoods" others are far worse.



When searching the vehicle and finding stolen property from the break-and-enter, the police were physically threatened by the three occupants of the car, including references to tracking down where the officers lived, killing them and “#ing your girlfriends”. The two officers were intimidated to the point of retreating to their police car and calling for urgent assistance. When police back-up arrived, the three occupants called their associates via their mobile phones, which incidentally is the Middle Eastern radio network used to communicate amongst gangs. Within minutes as many as twenty associates arrived as well as another forty or so from the street where they had been stopped. As further police cars arrived, the Middle Eastern males became even more aggressive, throwing punches at police, pushing police over onto the ground, threatening them with violence and damaging police vehicles.

When the duty officer arrived, he immediately ordered all police back into their vehicles and they retreated from the scene. The stolen property was not recovered. No offender was arrested for assaulting police or damaging police vehicles.

But the humiliation did not end there. The group of Middle Eastern males then drove to the police station, where they intimidated the station staff, damaged property and virtually held a suburban police station hostage. The police were powerless. The duty officer ordered police not to confront the offenders but to call for back-up from nearby stations. Eventually the offenders left of their own volition. No action was taken against them. Thugs





Street gang violence is relatively new to Perth and usually involves teenagers from non-English speaking backgrounds. These groups often cross the line into the dark underworld of organised crime. It's a touchy subject, the police don't want to admit it's there, but researchers say it's getting worst.... www.abc.net.au...




reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 04:13 PM by nixie_nox
reply to post by Agit8dChop


My first thought was: how much money do these things cost to maintain anyways?

We have like 10k-11k nukes. And you know they are all monitored. So this must be a cost cutting measure.

I figured it out once, we basically how 2-3 nukes for every country. So in case of a global attack, would we still be armed enough? Just my little paranoia.


reply posted on 21-9-2009 @ 04:14 PM by jdub297
Originally posted by Avenginggecko
reply to post by jdub297
More vulnerable? To what countries??? Let's say that the US does drastically cut its warheads to 1500. How does that make us more vulnerable?


Except that Obama doesn't propose a reduction. He rejected that!

Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether.


(from the OP)

If you read the OP, you post a more reasoned reply.

jw
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^