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: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

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 war.s?

Please, find one sentence in your article that says this proposal demands the disarmament of all nuclear war.s.

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]


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.




posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by msnevil
 

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


Ever heard the warning: "Be careful what you ask for ... ?"

I guess you've never heard of the "neutron bomb."

Developed in 1963, and deployed as tactical war.s, these weapons (ERWs in the jargon) only produce 1/10 of the blast and heat of conventional nukes, but emit powerful bursts of lethal radiation.

President George H. W. Bush oversaw their elimination from the U.S. arsenal in the late '80s and early '90s. Israel, Russia and China have maintained significant stockpiles.

Your dream come true.

jw



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by suicydking
 

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.


"It seems to me" you haven't read the OP or the links.


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


The story is about "abolish[ing] nuclear weapons." Nothing here about proliferation.

Just trolling, or actively trying to derail?

You are certainly NOT contributing.

jw



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

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.


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.

Have a grownup explain these things to you.

jw



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
Defense capabilities are NOT the point of this thread, and no one is "screaming."


Umm... yes they are...



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.


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.


The OP is about Obama's willingness to make significant diplomatic concessions without any reciprocation.


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.


(here we are 6 pages in, and YOU STILL DON"T GET IT)


As I said, the point is moot regardless of how many pages you generate.


"Childish blabber?" Exactly what we see when posters' emotions blind them to the sense of the thread.


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.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by SourGrapes
 






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!


Double bingo, when you look at Obama's history of openly communist comrades from Chicago.

barracknow.blogspot.com...

We are watching something so bizarre, I cannot begin to put my mind around all of it.

Why Chicago? this may go back to the turn of the century if I am correct.




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.


barracknow.blogspot.com...

So why has the MSM been so silent on the obvious, well

WHO runs the MSM?

Without the internet right now we wouldn't know squat, why do you think they want to control it?

[edit on 103030p://bTuesday2009 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   

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



Wow...for someone that keeps touting Deny Ignorance...you certainly dish it out consistently....

cns.miis.edu...


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]


This took me 30 seconds of googling...do you want me to continue to find other links?...

Or would rather keep spouting dramatic partisan BS about how President Obama would like to eliminate our nuclear arsenal unilaterally??

Actually, dumb question. OF COURSE you will keep repeating disproven nonsense....why not just shout "Liar"...but whatever you do, don't actually read, think or research for yourself...



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

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.


1. You haven't read (or can't understand) the OP or the links.

Non-proliferation is different from arms reduction is different from disarmament.

Obama is calling for disarmament. Plain and simple.


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


The linked story is about "abolishing nuclear weapons." Nothing here about reduction or proliferation.

2. As the OP is not about arms reduction, I have no opinion about the "necessary number" of nukes, delivery vehicles, or positioning.

3.(a) There is ALWAYS "pressure ... on the US to reduce its arsenal." Nuclear arms, proliferation, and defense levels are ALWAYS on the diplomatic table. Obama's unilateral action proves that the issue is always "on the table." Do you think the relevant State and Defense authorities go away, hibernate, or sit idle until the issue is brought forward?

(b) When you make a "concession," no one needs to "extract" anything.

4. The question isn't 500 war.s v. 1,000 or 100,000 "against a particular threat;" it IS about ZERO war.s against any threat!

You've proven you do not understand the premise of the OP or the linked article.

Are you just trolling, or actively trying to derail? You are certainly NOT contributing.

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 
Your link and quote of Obama's "promise" are an excellent find!


We will not pursue unilateral disarmament.


Proving again that Obama's promises do not match his actions. His direction to the Pentagon to re-write the nuclear review IS
"unilateral disarmament."

Hey! You recognized that the OP is about DISARMAMENT! Wow, it took only 7 pages and 12 posts.

Now, explain how the word "abolish" does not mean ZERO war.s (as opposed to 500 or 1,000 or 100,000) in response to a particular threat.

jw



[edit on 22-9-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
1. You haven't read (or can't understand) the OP or the links.


On the contrary I read both:

Those options include:

• Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic war.s.

• 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 war.s.


I see nothing in these steps that equals disarmament.



Obama is calling for disarmament. Plain and simple.


Stating the "eventual goal" is the same as the desire to defeat world hunger. It may not be achievable, and if it is, it's under plenty of conditions. Strange that you can't wrap your . around this.


2. As the OP is not about arms reduction


A quote form your source disproves that.


I have no opinion about the "necessary number" of nukes, delivery vehicles, or positioning


How can you then even start calling it "concessions" and "capitulations"?


Are you just trolling, or actively trying to derail?


I'm pointing out fairly obvious holes in your "logic".


You are certainly NOT contributing.


I'm not contributing to uninformed propaganda, that much is true. By your own admission, you can't even estimate the effect of the proposed cut on America's deterrent, yet you keep chanting you "concession" mantra. If I decided to eat sushi instead of a burger on a particular night (or vice versa) I sure as hell didn't make any concessions to anybody.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Every president since Reagan has reduced our nuclear stockpile except for bush minor...and we still have enough to vaporize the planet several times over.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 
The "options" presented under the "review" are as meaningful as any other of Obama's 'promises.' They are there to imitate legitimate inquiry, when his agenda is already well-formed and "set in stone."

The "fake right, go left" tactic applies to everything about Obama. He can take any number of positions, call for all sorts of opinions. The final account must be based on what he does.

I've seen this firsthand: "Here's what I'm going to do. Prep me an outline of options, including the ones the other guys want."

This happens all the time in the real world of politics.

Unilateral disarmament is coming.

Read his books. Follow his legislation. Think for yourself (I know you can't - I just threw that in as a little encouragement, if it matters.)

jw



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Sigh. You still don't understand. Did you actually listen to the audio linked in your story?

Here's the author of the story talking to the "European official":


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


The facts are clearly stated in print in the story, and now you have the transcript clearly stating that this is not a unilateral effort.

Is it really necessary for you to cling to this issue when it's completely clear that Obama does not intend to disarm the US without consensus among nuclear armed and nuclear ambitious states?

I'll end with a quote from you earlier in this thread:


Some of the best reporting on Amercian policy comes from foreign officials and press


Indeed! Apparently the ones in your story believe this is a multilateral process!



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Avenginggecko
 

Your reliance on a reporter's interpretation of Obama's words is misplaced. No one else is making any proposal anywhere near what Obama does. Denying his unilateral moves is wishful thinking, at best.

How many times must you see that Obama will say ANYTHING without regard to truth or intention? No, wait, you CAN'T see!

We are thus far 8 months into the new administration. Except for his promise to deliver American industry to the unions, Barack Obama has reneged upon and ignored every "promise" and pledge he made during his campaign.

Barry says in his books that he wants to disarm the US, unilaterally. Read his books; study his legislation. Many, sadly, would rather live in "the dream." The man is a fakir, and counts on his disciples to echo the mantra while ignoring the reality.

Your Kool-Aid is almost ready. Line up.

The converted will believe what best supports their faith.

Ignore facts. Ignore action.

Endorse and engage the promise of Hope and Change.

You are being lied to.

In five years or less you will deny in fear you ever took this position.

I will be waiting.

jw

[edit on 22-9-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


It is interesting that you ignored the rest of my post except the part I stated in jest. (edit: After rereading your post, you might be posting in jest as well. If so, I'm a idiot.
)

I left out the part about the neutron bomb, and figured somebody would take me serious. And you hit the ball out of the ball park.

But seriously, any weapon that mankind has built is a "genie out of a bottle." Once its realized, you will never be able to put it back in the bottle again. Either tech will develop a defensive\offensive weapon that make Nuclear weapons obsolete, or we develop mass production of "stronger" bombs. And we commit species suicide.

Either way, humans are doomed. and it only takes one idiot from the middle east to start the powder keg to world annihilation. ie "sword of Islam" vrs the "samson option".

[edit on 22-9-2009 by msnevil]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
I also think USA do not need much Nuclear Missiles.
Instead of 100 submarines armed with nuclear missiles you can change half of the nuclear missiles to SDI missiles. By doing it the submarines will be also platform for defending friendly nations.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
Your Kool-Aid is almost ready. Line up.


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.

Second, you refusing to listen to arguments posted by many in this thread is likely the result that most of the threads you started here, including this one, has one and one agenda only - to bash Obama. Not to be reasonable, not to prove that 2000 nukes are better for US security than 1300 or anything, or that a mobile missile defense is inherently lacking compared to land base, no reasonable argument of that sort -- bash BHO is all you want. Have your fill, if this is all you are capable of doing. To each his own.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

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.


Let me come out and say that the Kool-Aid argument is typically used by wing nuts who lack substance.

I don't think you need to have a specific political affiliation to make empty arguments or ad-hominem attacks.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join