It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:15 PM
reply to post by FritosBBQTwist

Russia already has thousands of more nukes then us.
second line.

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:15 PM
All of you are assuming Obama is actually going to do what he is saying. The last few months are replete with examples of Obama talking out of his neck and then doing nothing. The warmonger republicans/democrats have nothing to fear, nothing will be done.

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:18 PM
Yeh, in the background US is developing a satellite photon cannon that can boil half of the world's oceans with a couple blasts.

Until we can get over the idea that humans are the most important beings in the universe with a meaning then nukes will be used.

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:18 PM

Originally posted by antonia
All of you are assuming Obama is actually going to do what he is saying. The last few months are replete with examples of Obama talking out of his neck and then doing nothing. The warmonger republicans/democrats have nothing to fear, nothing will be done.

Explain what you mean? Who is a warmonger?

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I think its a good move.
I mean, you dont need that many nukes.
Also, they must cost a pretty penny to keep an unkeep on.

Thumbs up. About time someone stepped AWAY from the fire, instead of adding more fuel on it.

I think we should slash all of our Nukes.
1. They havent done us any good. Havent deterred the Soviets/Russia during the cold war in the least bit. Look how they Nuked us anyways.
2. No one wins in a Nuke war, except maybe WWII. But that doesn't count, those were small nukes and only several hundred thousands died, saving millions more.
3. It cost to much the keep them. Bloodloss is much cheaper.

What was that saying, "Walk Softly and Carry a Big Stick!" Bah, who needs Nukes. I honestly think we should upgrade to Neutron's.

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:20 PM
reply to post by OmegaPoint

it will make the nonproliferation treaty that much easier to enforce.

Really? How does that affect Israel (a non-signatory)?

How does it affect Iran (repudiated the NPT)?

How does it affect N. Korea (a non-signatory, that has reneged on multiple separate diplomatic promises regarding weapon and delivery system development and testing)?

How does it affect Pakistan (actively marketing nuclear and missile technology)?

"Enforce" away. It will make no difference to the biggest threats.


posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:34 PM
reply to post by Sky watcher

Without wanting to throw an off topic response Gog - Magog reference in the Bible In Ezekiel is referenced to a non human adversary and a land or status quo that existed at the dawn of human civilization. Events are depicted and realized by the Bible (Both Old testament and later in the Apocalypse) )in a manner that is describing a full circle of events. Gog and Magog type of events will once reappear after the 1000 year rule of Christ. After all the major events by Apocalypse are completed and after the Kingdom of the Son of Man is established. Apocalypse makes a reference in Gog - Magog either because it is either needed to display a parallel of a similar situation that already happened once or because it states the true identities of this new threat against humanity in the future.
If we follow the Biblical claims and other ancient myths Gog - Magog are references for something other than human. Something different that used to exist and will once again according to the scripture interpretation will have to threaten humanity again in the future.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by spacebot]

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:41 PM
The USA economy is in the toilet.

This has everything to do with money, just like the missile defense system.

Obama is just trying to get other countries to do the same, and make himself look better in the process. The leaders of those other nations aren't that dense.

Either way, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, etc...none of them are scared of the USA bombing them. They are scared of other nations bombing them. The USA disarming doesn't mean anything to them.

If you were president, what would you cut from the budget ahead of nuclear bombs?

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:46 PM
Wow the original article in the OP talks about unilateral disarament not minor cuts.

What a great idea, lets get rid our weapons while religous nuts are striving to build them, and North Korea is wanting to play with theres. Plus you have Russia announcing that they plan to build stealth nukes that are not detectable by radar.

When your enemies build more weapons is not the time to get rid of yours.

Why is it Obama can keep promises to cripple our military and reduce our defenses (like the missile shield), but he can't keep his one on no lobbyasts and no corruption. Why is that? Oh I know it's because he only tries to weaken us. Great Job there commander in chief.

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:51 PM
reply to post by jdub297

I did read the Op, thanks.

Could you post a quote from the article of Obama stating that he wants this proposal to eliminate all of our nuclear warheads?

Please, find one sentence in your article that says this proposal demands the disarmament of all nuclear warheads. I actually did read the OP, and if you had done more than a cursory glance and jumped to conclusions, you'd see that nothing in your article comes close to saying Obama is about to get rid of our nuclear arsenal.

The point of the article is to show that the US and Britain are serious about making strides towards nuclear disarmament. Obviously, if a consensus can't be reached with other nuclear powers, the US won't just dismantle its arsenal and hope for the best. Obama does want to completely end nuclear proliferation (which is a good thing), but with the caveat that other nations commit to doing the same.

Nothing in that article states that the US is anywhere near disarming 100% of its nuclear weapons unilaterally.

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:56 PM
reply to post by centurion1211

If the US even got rid of half its nukes, we would still have way more then anyone else.


In fact, I don't think this graph shows how many the US and Russia really have, which I have seen reported as twice that much!

Yea, we can off a few with no repercussions.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by nixie_nox]

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:56 PM

Nature Abhors A Vacuum

The power vacuum will have to be filled with soldiers.

The abolition of nuclear weapons requires either:

a) unilateral surrender (national suicide); or
b) universal disarmament.

Option B will require universal mobilization of a worldwide network of soldiers armed with conventional weapons and modern communications and intelligence equipment, dedicated to the identification and destruction of weapons of mass destruction.

Such a worldwide army will in and of itself constitute a threat to Liberty if not constrained by what? Its own honor? In today's world?

Such a disarmed humanity will need access to a limited number of 'weapons' under International Control for asteroid interdiction, deterrent to unfriendly extraterrestrials, or for Orion pulse-power units.

Altogether, an admirable goal but one that may be impractical as it requires hundreds of millions of Samurai-

And no rival Shoguns.

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:56 PM

Originally posted 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.

Living in willful ignorance doesn't make the bad things go away.
[edit on 21-9-2009 by jdub297]

By "living in willful ignorance" are you refering to the snarky post of yours that Obama stated in "Plain English" that it was his goal to abolish our nuclear arsenal?

Because "willful ignorance" to me would be making that claim when in fact the article clearly says that "European Officials" ...not Obama...said Obama's goal was to "abolish nuclear weapons"...not the just the US arsenal...which is among most world leaders goals, however unrealistic.

Mis-attributing qoutes, distorting context...par for the course in this partisan circus.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by maybereal11]

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 05:05 PM
Not to state the obvious but, did our Nuclear Arsenal in any way deter the terrorist attacks on 9-11?

Once we have the nuclear capacity to obliterate the entire globe, a wise nation would turn it's resources toward more relevant defenses.

President Obama is looking to REDUCE the active nuclear arsenal....just like GWB did.

Does he want to eliminate it all together...sure, but the rest of the world has to go first.

All the rest of this is nutty predictable partisan attacks.

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 05:16 PM
Think about this for a minute. In 1933 there was the world disarment conference through the league of nations. Now considering that there had been a very bloodly war only 15 years before with massive deaths, lets say well into 50 million plus, you'd have thought that everyone would have been for the idea of disarment. But it never happened.
We as a race will repeat the same mistakes time and time again, the cycle is endless. So sadly nukes are here to stay because in human instinct no one can trust someone else fully.

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

The age of nukes is gone in my opinion.

One day, a nation is going to build a device that can detonate a nuke.

Fly it over colorado, activate it, all of a sudden all the nukes in silo's go off.

then it will be a race to disarm!

I never heard of such a possibly, were you just spit-balling or have you any links to such info/ theoretical concepts etc. .

Sounds interesting , an angle i never thought of ......and if ever realised, it would be a serious game changer , where assets become liabilities overnight.


posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 06:32 PM

Originally posted by maybereal11
Not to state the obvious but, did our Nuclear Arsenal in any way deter the terrorist attacks on 9-11?

9/11 wasn't a nuclear attack. We don't have nukes to prevent terrorist attacks, we have nukes to prevent one being launched at us. Simplified it a bit, but that's basically what it boils down to. The rest of the world knows we have them and will use them if forced, just as we know which other countries have them. We haven't kept them so we can use them (unless forced into it of course), we've kept them so no one else will.

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 06:36 PM
Russia General Says Missile Plan Not Shelved

ZURICH (Reuters) - Russia's top general said on Monday that plans to deploy missiles in an enclave next to Poland had not been shelved, despite a decision by the United States to rethink plans for missile defence in Europe.

When asked about the matter Monday, the chief of Russia's general staff, Nikolai Makarov, said: "There has been no such decision. It should be a political decision. It should be made by the president."

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 06:57 PM
reducing nuclear weapons would be a good thing

elimination would be the end of life as we know it, Nukes are not the best way to kill mass numbers of people anymore, biological weapons are.

None the less being able to land nukes anywhere in the world is a wonderful deterrent to anyone destroying your country or friends country

This somehow is setting the stage for a global conflict in ww2 style fashion in which we can actually fight a major conventional war...

I'm sorry but this doesn't feel right

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:14 PM
Freeman Dysons thoughts on Nuclear Weapons .

Worth a watch.

edit:to fix video embed

[edit on 21-9-2009 by UmbraSumus]

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in