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 jdub297
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]
My dream project, The Ultimate "Green Nuclear bomb", Good for the environment, deadly to the enemy.
It seems that you are equating an end to proliferation with abolishing our weapons stockpile.
definition of proliferation
1. To increase in number or spread rapidly.
and abolish
1. To do away with wholly; to annul; to make void; to end a law, system, custom or institution
So you see, ending proliferation is not the same thing as abolishing what exists.
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
Originally posted by buddhasystem
With all the hysteria running thick in this thread, nobody has yet provided a simple data point on how many nukes they think are necessary to defend the Unites States of America from existing threats.
Absent that, I call the screams of "unilateral disarmament" and "capitulation" a childish blabber.
Originally posted by jdub297
Defense capabilities are NOT the point of this thread, and no one is "screaming."
The discussion may hurt your "ears," but that's more a reflection of your sensitivities than the maturity or sincerity of those concerned about America's place in international relations.
The OP is about Obama's willingness to make significant diplomatic concessions without any reciprocation.
(here we are 6 pages in, and YOU STILL DON"T GET IT)
"Childish blabber?" Exactly what we see when posters' emotions blind them to the sense of the thread.
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!
Frank Marshall Davis works closely in communist causes with Vernon Jarrett in Chicago. Davis moves to hawaii where he eventually meets and mentors a young Barack Obama. Then Obama moves to Chicago where his career is promoted by both Davis's old colleague Vernon Jarrett and the Communist Party. Vernon Jarrett's daughter-in-law employs Barack Obama's fiance, befriends the family and becomes one of President Obama's most trusted advisors. The Communist Party throws its entire weight behind Obama's presidential campaign.
This story is nearly four months old but it is still fresh if someone like Beck picks it up.
Originally posted by jdub297
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
Obama declared:
Here's what I'll say as president: America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons. We will not pursue unilateral disarmament. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong nuclear deterrent. But we'll keep our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on the long road towards eliminating nuclear weapons. We'll work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert...[and] we'll set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global
Obama thus endorses the nuclear-free world objective laid out most famously by former secretaries of state George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former secretary of defense William Perry, and former senator Sam Nunn, while at the same time insisting that the United States will continue to deploy nuclear weapons so long as they "exist" anywhere[/b]
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Again, I'm asking you to demonstrate your significant maturity and considerable sincerity by providing the necessary number of nukes that position America in the right place in international relations.
...
There was no pressure in the US to reduce its arsenal and no third party worked to extract the "concession", therefore there was no concession in the first place.
...
Sense? What sense?
Unless you demonstrate that 500 nukes aren't a sufficient deterrent against a particular threat (as opposed to 1000 or 100000), there is no sense in the OP and the ensuing tempest in a teacup.
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
We will not pursue unilateral disarmament.
Originally posted by jdub297
1. You haven't read (or can't understand) the OP or the links.
Those options include:
• Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.
• Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.
• Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.
Obama is calling for disarmament. Plain and simple.
2. As the OP is not about arms reduction
I have no opinion about the "necessary number" of nukes, delivery vehicles, or positioning
Are you just trolling, or actively trying to derail?
You are certainly NOT contributing.
It’s definitely not unilateral is the point to make. It is definitely a multilateral effort. He wants the US to be a leader in a multilateral process in which the weapons states, the existing weapons states, agree to radical disarmament in return for the non weapon states to continue to forego nuclear weapons
Some of the best reporting on Amercian policy comes from foreign officials and press
Originally posted by jdub297
Your Kool-Aid is almost ready. Line up.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
First, as a matter of style... In recent years, I noticed that the Kool-Aid "argument" is typically used by right-wing nuts who lack substance. Doesn't mean it's you. Just an observation.
Originally posted by Jenna
Originally posted by buddhasystem
First, as a matter of style... In recent years, I noticed that the Kool-Aid "argument" is typically used by right-wing nuts who lack substance. Doesn't mean it's you. Just an observation.
Do an advanced search on google for kool aid and Bush and make sure you put Obama as a word you specifically don't want in the results with ATS as the domain to be searched. There are 1050 results from this site alone with the majority of those referring to Bush supporters as kool aid drinkers. It's not something new used by "right-wing nuts", unless those who disapproved of Bush were "right-wing nuts" as well.