It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jdub297
his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
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.
Realistically, any government that uses a nuclear warhead aggressively against another nation is signing its own death warrant
In my opinion one country only needs enought warheads to ensure the destruction of one other country to deter them all.
If you were president, what would you cut from the budget ahead of nuclear bombs?
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.
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.
the article clearly says that "European Officials" ...not Obama...said Obama's goal was to "abolish nuclear weapons"...not the just the US arsenal...
Does he want to eliminate it all together...sure, but the rest of the world has to go first.
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.
Considering the above, ask yourself who does he serve and what is his motivation?
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.
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.
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.
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.