Obama Plans to Take Off America's Pants

Obama plans to take-off America's pants and have the United States begin sauntering about the word in an embarrassing pair of ill-fitting briefs, the BBC reports.

US President Barack Obama is planning "dramatic reductions" in the country's nuclear arsenal, a senior US administration official has said. The review "will point to dramatic reductions in the stockpile, while maintaining a strong and reliable deterrent", the official said.

- BBC

The ability of the United States to absorb a first-strike and still have enough warheads left to respond in-kind is guaranteed only by an excess of weapons. Obama's plan, depending on the severity of cuts, would likely require himself and future presidents to adopt a "launch on warning" policy, a reversal of American nuclear doctrine where retaliation occurs only after detonation of warheads on American soil, not on mere detection of inbound missiles.

Such a reversal would open the possibility of launch dictated by computer error and propel the world to the brink of destruction and a future that would see young children running through the streets of devastated and ravaged cities, their skin melting off them from the heat of an atomic blast, etc. etc. and so on and so forth.

Why does Obama hate human life?

[edit on 1-3-2010 by zenser]

reply to post by zenser


um this is just common sense fixed locations are idiotic and each missle costs a billion to maintain a year. Besides fixed locations are obsolete sicne we have nuclear attack subs. its about time we get rid of those relics.

THE BIG QUESTION is what are they going to do with the material? whatever happened to that mountain we were going to put it in? we should just dump it all in third world countries and tell them its gold or something rare and valuable. Then we get to eliminate an inferior culture and dump our waste.

its a WIN-WIN!

reply to post by tigpoppa


Silo-based missiles are expensive, but less expensive than SSBN's. A balanced deterrent maintains the triumvirate of subs, silos and supersonics.

Why do you hate human life?

That 'mountain' is Yucca in Nevada. It's been pretty much killed by Harry Reid and Obama. I live here and am very much for it.

I am not surprised by his move here. He only has a limited time to accomplish his agenda so get ready for more.

reply to post by zenser


Oh yes, Obama hates human life!

Is it so wrong to think that a world with the major powers having nuclear arms is dangerous?

Is it wrong to think it is hypocritical to demand countries disarm when we are armed to the teeth?

No one should have nuclear arms. After what our country did to Japan, there should have been an outcry across the globe to disarm everybody.

Of course the war-mongerers are going to hate this decision.

For those of us living in the 21st century, it's an important step in the right direction.

Originally posted by drwizardphd
Of course the war-mongerers are going to hate this decision.

For those of us living in the 21st century, it's an important step in the right direction.

A step toward the inevitability of nuclear war ...

"A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us." - Margaret Thatcher

Originally posted by iamsupermanv2
reply to post by zenser

 

Is it so wrong to think that a world with the major powers having nuclear arms is dangerous?

yes

Nuclear weapons are a threat to human life. If we have less to destroy the world with, it won't change the fact that we will still have enough to blow up anyone stupid enough to attack us with nukes.

If the United States retires their weapons in storage only this will not affect their ability to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike at all. The weapons in storage are inerted and not mated to delivery systems and therefor are not ready to be used at the drop of a hat so to speak.

This is one of the stories that I am currently covering as well, and from what I have found it appears the majority of the weapons that will be cut are tactical nuclear weapons, which are designed to be used in a battlefield, as opposed to the strategic nuclear weapons which are capable of destroying cities.

One reason I see this happening now is that the United States really no longer has a need for tactical nuclear weapons. Conventional arms such as bunker busters and fuel air bombs have filled in many of the roles that the smaller nukes were designed for.

Everything I have heard, and even in the BBC article, state that the American nuclear deterrence will not be affected by this. Your headline therefore is quite misleading, nobody is talking about taking America's "pants" and if you do believe that having a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons is so needed to protecting the manhood of the United States, perhaps it is time for the US to have a bit more humility anyways.

Originally posted by Solasis
Nuclear weapons are a threat to human life. If we have less to destroy the world with, it won't change the fact that we will still have enough to blow up anyone stupid enough to attack us with nukes.

This is the simplification of nuclear warfighting that 99% of America buys into.

Q: If Johnny (adversary X) has 300 nuclear weapons and Cathy (the United States) has 200 nuclear weapons, what happens if Johnny uses 200 of his 300 warheads to eliminate all 200 of Cathy's warheads?

A: Cathy now has 0 warheads and Johnny has 100 warheads. Cathy is forced to surrender or the next volley hits cities instead of silos.

This is what you want:




[edit on 1-3-2010 by zenser]

I didn't have time to read your entire speech but if you'd like to bullet-point it maybe I'll give it a once-over.

What an alarmist and misleading interpretation of facts.

I'm surprised you didn't stoop to including an ICBM reference. (drop pants - BM - get it?)

Since you seem to like quotes:

"You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake." ~Jeanette Rankin


[edit on 1-3-2010 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by zenser


But who has as many nukes as we do? Plus, as has been stated, these are not long range nukes.

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by zenser

 

Plus, as has been stated, these are not long range nukes.

Who stated that?

[edit on 1-3-2010 by zenser]

reply to post by zenser


I stopped short of saying this sir, but it seems you are war mongering.

The disarming of nuclear weapons is a show of leadership, and a step in the right direction.

We destroyed two cities already, what would come of nuking a few more?

reply to post by zenser

Why does Obama hate human life?

I don't think Obama hates human life, he just lacks any kind of common sense or ability to view human nature as it really is. In this regard he is just like every other Progressive and/or Liberal.

They all think if we play nice and hand everything to people on a silver platter that life will be all unicorns and lollipops, because their brains are unable to handle things like having enough money to pay the bills or that some people actually would attack us the moment they thought they had a chance to win. Personally, I find it to be an interesting psychological phenomema where they almost seem as though there thought processes haven't develoed past a toddler.

Originally posted by iamsupermanv2
reply to post by zenser

 

I stopped short of saying this sir, but it seems you are war mongering.

The disarming of nuclear weapons is a show of leadership, and a step in the right direction.

We destroyed two cities already, what would come of nuking a few more?

I don't know maybe winning a war we desperately need to win for the good of the world, or maybe jst having them around as a detterent to anyone who wants a piece of us.

Originally posted by iamsupermanv2
reply to post by zenser

 

I stopped short of saying this sir, but it seems you are war mongering.

The disarming of nuclear weapons is a show of leadership, and a step in the right direction.

We destroyed two cities already, what would come of nuking a few more?

It's amusing you accuse me of being a "warmonger" when you're supporting actions - unilateral disarmament - that would require the US to adopt a "launch on warning" policy, one of the most dangerous and reckless scenarios imaginable. Why do you want America bathed in a fireball of nuclear horror? Why do you want your close friends and families running naked through the streets, crippled by flash blindness, their skin melting off their bodies? What is going on in your mind? What happened to you growing up that you fantasize about that?

My first thought in reaction to the title was "We're gonna show off how big our Florida is!"

Given how silly this "discussion" has become... I think I'll leave it at that

[edit on 1-3-2010 by TheWalkingFox]