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: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Realistically, we could close and dismantle ALL of our ground based nuclear silos and weapons, cut by 3/4 the air-launched (cruise missles) nuclear systems, but keep the sub based boomers and we would still have enough for a deterrent. It would also help by removing alot of first strike options from our mainlands.




posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

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

www.guardian.co.uk...

What's next?



What's next if we abolish nuclear weapons unilaterally?

Russia will not. China will not. India will not. Pakistan will not. North Korea will not.

If we do, we will be dependent upon the above to protect us against anyone else who has or develops Nuclear Weapons. The only defense is a stronger defense than what you are defending against.

Last week Putin made it known he is considering retaking control or the Russian Government again. We know he is for reinstalling the former Soviet Union. Obama just took a huge dump on Poland on the 70th Anniversary of the last time Russia invaded and took control of them.

The real question is who exactly does Obama serve? Is he an operative for a foreign government who managed to defraud his way into our White House? He is no dummy. He knows the consequences of what he is doing. He knows our military might is what has held the whole world together for many decades.

Considering the above, ask yourself who does he serve and what is his motivation?

Now he lied constantly and openly to get elected. Are all these promises to other countries lies as well? He knows that Congress can and will overrule him on this, so whats the real story?

It is becoming clearer by the day he has no intention of running again, so what is he trying to do in just four years? Is he perhaps functionally insane? It is possible. Many Rulers throughout history have been insane and yet they used their charisma to get into power and then destroyed their countries. Is this the same?

Run the list through your mind of what he has done so far and then try and put any Partisan nonsense out of your mind; then ask what is this man up too?



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
What's next if we abolish nuclear weapons unilaterally?


I have a question. Since when did the US get special permission on Gods earth to have nuclear weapons and other nations not to?

I agree that we are leaving ourselves opened up we we are the only ones to completely eliminate these weapons of mass distructions but exactly what wrong will happen if hypothetically all nuclear weapons were to be dismantled? Hypothetically? If this planet or ours didnt have any nuclear weapons of mass distruction what harm?


Russia will not. China will not. India will not. Pakistan will not. North Korea will not.


You are correct they will not. Their governments and some supporters are just as power hungry, mindless and imperialistic as those who whine about any dismantling of nuclear weapons here in these United States.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


This is not "hypothetical". He want's to disarm while others are still developing nuclear weapons of their own.

Yes it would be a wonderful world. We don't live in that world. We live in this one and it is a dangerous world. We have to deal with protecting ourselves in the world we actually reside in.

Personally I think it is yet another lie and a scare tactic to get something else he wants.

What if Putin retakes control and starts taking back former territory as he has stated he wishes to do?

What happens if China's next leader decides to revert to the bad old days?

We would all love a peaceful world full of decent people. We don't live on one.

I'd agree we need to stop being the World Police Force and let them protect themselves, but at the same time the best offense is still a strong defense. The fear of nuclear retaliation is the only reason the world has not seen another huge war. The knowledge we can wipe out entire countries in a day is what keeps them inside their borders. Take down that fence and I assure you we will pay.

Iraq and Afghanistan are minor skirmishes compared to what could happen. One volley of Chinese or Russian missiles and us with nothing to respond with would be the end.

Add up the facts here. He is eliminating the missile shield both here and abroad. He now wants to eliminate the defensive weapons that have kept us safe. When only other countries have Nuclear Weapons and we have no missiles to defend against them? There is a pattern here. A scary pattern.

We can not live in a fantasy world that does not exist. We can dream of it someday, but we are not even close now.

Do you have another solution that would guarantee our safety in today's reality; not in a hypothetical, non-existent scenario?



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 

I can also see a dark future in your world. One where the US continues playing "Police officer" in the world, and when it comes time for war, nuclear weapons are used, and all that will be left is a bleak and desolate landscape. No trees, no people, no animals, no nothing.

The world will be gone...



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


hey jdub,what part of SA are you from? i'm north...have you ever seen the bonkers down by 1604 and 90? there's one hell of a lot of em.
they don't make me feel safe,as it draws a target on the city i live in,but what a target we would be if there were none.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Avenginggecko
 

Realistically, any government that uses a nuclear warhead aggressively against another nation is signing its own death warrant


Not if they attack a country that has "abolish[ed]" nuclear weapons, as Obama advocates.


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


So, you accept nuclear weapons as necessary to defense? You think so long as the US has "enough," then we're OK?

Tell that to Barack Obama, who advocates giving up ALL nuclear weapons.

jw



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Nickmare
 

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


Those matters reserved to the states, not delegated to the Feds:
Dept. of Education
Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
Federal Reserve
Bureau of Land Management
Dept. of Labor

Is that enough for a start?

jw



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Avenginggecko
 

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.

Where have you been?

What do you think "abolish" means? The OP clearly quotes foreign
sources
(do you think the American MSM will put Messiah in a bad light?) on Obama's plan to "abolish nuclear weapons."

Can he do this for Russia? No. The EU? No. Israel, India, Pakistan, PDRK, or Iran? No.

Obama can only "abolish" US nuclear weapons.

This has been reported since May, when Obama's plans first became a topic for the MSM. Ever heard of "Slate?" The "New York Times?"

They've reported and commented on Obama's plans to "abolish" US nukes.

Where have you been?


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.


OK, your turn. Show ME, show everyone, where Obama has said any such thing. (Hint: He hasn't.)

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 21-9-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 

the article clearly says that "European Officials" ...not Obama...said Obama's goal was to "abolish nuclear weapons"...not the just the US arsenal...


I am deeply sorry for you if you have missed the limited reporting of Obama's intentions. These have been somewhat documented in the US MSM by such venues as "Slate," the "New York Times," the "StarTribune," "Yahoo," "National Affairs," "Huffington Post," "Breitbart," and "Reuters."

If it takes "European officials" to bring his intentions to light, that is more a reflection of the lack of serious coverage given in the US than anything else.

As for "just the US arsenal," how could Obama "abolish" anyone else's arsenal?

Did you expect Russia, India, Al Qaeda, Pakistan, Israel, France, England, et c. to give up their weapons because Obama says to?

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 

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


I've asked this of others without a reply: Where does Obama say "the rest of the world goes first?"

(I'll make it easy for you - - he doesn't.)

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

The real question is who exactly does Obama serve? Is he an operative for a foreign government who managed to defraud his way into our White House? He is no dummy. He knows the consequences of what he is doing. He knows our military might is what has held the whole world together for many decades.

BINGO!



Considering the above, ask yourself who does he serve and what is his motivation?


As I've said a million times before (okay, maybe 6 or 7 times on ATS), the US has been infiltrated with a silent, but extremely DEADLY, coup.

We will soon find out who the major players are, in this silent take-over. I have my theories, on a few of the financiers and backers. A couple of foreign governments are involved.

Nuclear arsenal will not be destroyed, no matter what we're told. They've already been allotted to the ppl funding the coup. This announcement (along with last week's about the Poland thing) are all 'dog and pony' (much like the healthcare bill).

The CIA is on to them (along with a few other organizations), which is why they are throwing wrenches at the Agency. They're trying to stall discovery, as long as they can.

You see, things aren't going as smooth as originally planned. This is why all seems so damned fast and furious these days, they're jamming everything they can down our throat, as fast as they can.

But, we are on to them. Come on, brothers and sisters, please dig more. Keep digging, we are LITERALLY in the race of our lifetime. I honestly believe that we can beat this/them.

I'm so proud right now, so proud how quickly the majority is breaking this all down. See? We're not asleep, maybe a little dazed at times, but we can (and do) stand right back up at full-attention; when all's not looking so keen.

A proud American,

-Sour


[edit on 21-9-2009 by SourGrapes]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jacksonred
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.


You've touched on a very important point.

In September, 1938, British Prime Minister Oliver Chamberlain unilaterally gave in to Germany when it decided to annex a German-speaking area of Czechoslovakia. He proclaimed his move as "Peace for our time."

The next year, Hitler invaded the remainder of Czechoslovakia and all of Poland, starting WWII.

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Spectre0o0
 

hey jdub,what part of SA are you from? i'm north...have you ever seen the bonkers down by 1604 and 90? there's one hell of a lot of em.


The Medina Base weapons depot is too weird to describe. I used to drive in from Castroville in the early morning, and saw some really STRANGE convoys and vehicles!

I live inside 1604, but have a ranch outside it. I've driven past the bunkers for over 30 years.

When I was a kid, a warhead exploded (the nuke did NOT detonate, obviously), and it rattled our windows in town 10 miles away. Scared the poop out of us.

You know what I mean when I talk about deterrence and vulnerability.
Think about Randoph AFB, Lackland AFB, Kelly Field, Brooks and Hondo. And, Ft. Sam, BAMC, Martindale, Camp Bullis, Medina Base. Were we a target?

We've lived with it; it is REAL. Would YOU feel safe if we just decided not to defend ourselves anymore?

jw

p.s. Go Royals, Go Owls.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SourGrapes
 

As I've said a million times before (okay, maybe 6 or 7 times on ATS), the US has been infiltrated with a silent, but extremely DEADLY, coup.

We will soon find out who the major players are, in this silent take-over. I have my theories, on a few of the financiers and backers. A couple of foreign governments are involved.
...
I'm so proud right now, so proud how quickly the majority is breaking this all down. See? We're not asleep, maybe a little dazed at times, but we can (and do) stand right back up at full-attention; when all's not looking so keen.


"BINGO!" indeed. What did it take, 6 pages?

I got directed to this site a year ago and was intrigued by some of the discussion/topics.

I've not been an adherent to any vast "conspiracy" theory, but the last election has gotten me wondering ... .

Something we can't see is definitely "up."

Where've you been? Thank God for a little objectivity and a touch of suspicion. It DOES make you want to "dig deeper" if you are really concerned with our past as well as our future.

Thanks for a little sanity in a sea of passive surrender.

jw

[edit on 21-9-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I don't know what to think on this issue.

Personally, I would love the US and the rest of the world to dismantle their weapons of mass destruction. But I am also not delusional, and realize that nobody will truly make their swords into plows. This is not the world where the lion sleeps with the sheep.

The sheep need weapons to defend against the lions. Or the sheep will be over ran and consumed. There is logic in deterrence and only delusional people truly believe that lions don't exist.

I think we should lower the US arsenal, while at the same time upgrading what we have. To make it more efficient and deadly. Make clean bombs that have the potential of massively destroying enemy infrastructure without killing the environment.

My dream project, The Ultimate "Green Nuclear bomb", Good for the environment, deadly to the enemy.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Nukes are very old tech. An anti-matter bomb the size of a matchbox could take out an entire city. I suspect the US has several of these tucked away so no longer requires the waste of money in maintaining nukes.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Maybe Obama is not really slashing nukes. Maybe he is just reducing numbers so they can be transfered to untraceable entities to be used against us. Consider who his bosses are and how crazy they are. Do you trust your government to not nuke you? Never trust a Nazi.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by jdub297
 


So Obama is thinking of cutting the nuclear arsenal?

Lets see now.

US has 800 nukes, can potentially destroy man kind in existence.
US had 400 nukes, can potentially destroy man kind in existence.

The difference? One is half the amount, nevertheless still weapons of mass distruction.

We have rightwingers going crazy about Iran, Iraq and North Korea developing their own nukes... because of their "concern of the threat" and yet, the same individuals whine about cutting the arsenal of the US itself. I'd swear folks are still living in the cold war...... no no scratch that, I swear folks want things to be as they were during the cold war.


I completely agree.

400 vs 800? Not really much of a difference.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join