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.

 

More Concessions? Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted 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.



No, it is not something we have to try.

Why?

Again, very simple.

If you and obama are wrong about this, it will be a disaster for this country and all of its people. That is not a risk we can afford to take because we will not get the opportunity for the two of you to say "oops!". Or maybe that's just would you'd really like to see happen?

Remember that obama took an oath to defend this country against all enemies - foreign and domestic. That means all the other countries with or without WMD's AND people like you that would foolishly sell us out.





posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
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...?



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

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?



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
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]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

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".



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Next stop is the dismantling of our military.


We need more Atomic Bombs.


[edit on 21-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
HATE TO BREAK IT TO ALL OF YA...but when we are not a super power, another country will be.

And chances are, we will get the short end of the stick, even if it isn't far down.

Now that isn't saying that by giving up nukes will hurt us in any way off the bat, but I am talking about in the long run. We shall see...



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
HATE TO BREAK IT TO ALL OF YA...but when we are not a super power, another country will be.


This is deep!

Now, what exactly number of nukes qualifies a country as superpower? Pray tell.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Instead of investing in nukes, I think we need a much more powerful weapon. We need something that would wipe out an entire country if necessary. We need something that would be affective on a massive scale, and it must do so by only firing one shot. Nukes are too weak. Maybe our government will devise a new weapon, which can be produced outside of the public's view.

Complacency is death.

Hopefully our next president will reverse Obama's foolish changes.

We need to protect the citizens of these United States from communism, terrorist, and socialism. Obama is a fool.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
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...




posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I welcome the reductions and the wisdom that comes with it. I can't put my finger on it but in recent years I've come to feel that these weapons may do more then just damage our own world and attract the wrong kind of attention from beings we should be trying to avoid.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I disagree. If V-Day Japan proves anything, its that you CAN EASILY win an atomic war if you are the only one with the weapon. I'm sure Obama isn't thinking that many steps ahead though, probably too hard. Still spending too much time fighting "Reagan and his minions" instead of making level headed decisions.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Maybe you don't need nuclear weapons anymore.
Maybe they will be considered obsolete from advances of the future technology.
Researching in new philosophies of projection of power versus traditional nuclear weapons and their delivery systems inserts a game changer in the strategic field.

It is either that or Obama with his decisions acts in concert with other powers about a future radical change of the global political status quo as we know it.

Anyone can give some hints about this?

[edit on 21-9-2009 by spacebot]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by snusfanatic
I disagree. If V-Day Japan proves anything, its that you CAN EASILY win an atomic war if you are the only one with the weapon. I'm sure Obama isn't thinking that many steps ahead though, probably too hard. Still spending too much time fighting "Reagan and his minions" instead of making level headed decisions.


I'm sorry, I'm not following.

How is pushing for more disarmament, both at here & worldwide, going to leave only one nation with nukes?

We're not talking about trashing our entire arsenal. That will never happen in our lifetimes.

Am I missing something, or are you just inciting?



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

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



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
I suggest everyone scream at their Senators and Congressmen or woman till this is stopped. They will all give them up after the next war, hand them to Obama and his new one world government AKA the UN. Thats why the Anti-Christ will be unstoppable till God lays the smack down on him.

This is laying the ground work for it. You all need to be ready, The Gog-Magog war is very near.

Only prayer can stop it now, Pray for Russia, Iran and Israel that they find some other way to get over their deferences. Pray Obama gets removed from power in a coup so he can not control our military anymore.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join