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.
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.
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...?
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...?
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...?
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?
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 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.
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...
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.
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?
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.