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.

 

Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

page: 7
31
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
What's the big deal? Your government could at any moment say "we changed our mind" and nuke whatever. It's a nice idea, but it doesn't change anything.




posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by AR154
 


Well clearly you missed the point but whatever nice one line post!!! Congrats!

2nd Line.

Also with all the vast knowledge you must contain...
Maybe you could show me the probability of another nuclear bomb strike in our century? If any of your equations equal more then .0000000000000000000000001% probability, then your math is wrong.




[edit on 6-4-2010 by NoJoker13]

[edit on 6-4-2010 by NoJoker13]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


My goodness, you sure said a mouthful. Personal insults and all, huh?
Whew.

No, it wasn't sarcasm. I absolutely meant it. Still mean it. Will always mean it.

All nations need to rid themselves of weapons of mass destruction. All Nations. If the U.S. can take even a baby step in promoting this, and making an example for others to follow, then this will be the best thing to come from this country .... maybe ever.

What the puzzling part of this is, sir, is how in the world could anybody object to a step towards a peaceful planet? or is it just because you don't like the source of the goodwill?

Hmmm?



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alien Mind

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
As I posted on the other thread, I consider this excellent news.

These type weapons are unacceptable to humankind and to our planet, and any small step towards their removal needs to be greatly commended.

Good for OBama!!!!


You seem to not understand that it invites others to nuke us because they now know that we won't launch nukes back. Remember if we are ever attacked by nukes (which is NOT impossible) i want you to go to ats and say that again and see if you don't get burned.



Okay. Here I am on ATS, saying it (again?) on ATS. I have done your bidding. You happy? In the event we are hit by nukes, you think I could be here posting? They call them weapons of "mass destruction" for a reason.

Why is it....that when someone disagrees, "they don't understand".

I do understand, thank you so very much. I disagree that it "invites" others to nuke us. Pleeze.


Others have explained it thoroughly in other posts on this very thread.

Why don't you read it? Perhaps it will enhance your understanding
.



[edit on 4/6/2010 by ladyinwaiting]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
So many fearful children nowadays. Paranoia runs deep in the American blood from all the years of being threatened by boogymen.

I am no fan of Obama but...

If the world's leading country cannot start setting an example to get us all out of the nuclear mess than who will? Someone needs to inject some sanity into the system after Bush tried to make nuclear war easy.

Stop being so fearful you make Americans look weak.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Its a good signal to Iran and NK, although i don't think they will change their position.DUring the Cold war the main players already responded to the unlikeliness of MAD with small response forces, the doctrine that war should be fought on each scale.
These are nice statements but lets not forget MAD and other doctrines can get irrational in real life, when # hits the fan even the president of the USA might get irrational, If the US gets hit by a biological attack the people will demand retaliation in good fashion...

[edit on 6-4-2010 by Foppezao]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
double post. btw When does a warhead gets expired? can it get a update? life extension?

[edit on 6-4-2010 by Foppezao]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
HA HA HA Given the amount of lies this man tells I think this is more likely a warning to IRAN that he plans to use Nukes when he decides the time is right.

And in the meantime Depleted Uranium continues to be used, devastating even greater areas of the middle east.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 





That is a matter of opinion. Should I drag out my Hiroshima stats & pics?

Has Japan collapsed without nukes?

Insecure much?


No Japan got nuked, they never had nukes, so they are not in a habit of bullying, terrorizing, suppressing other nations.. Plus American nukes are there to protect Japan since Japan believe it or not is part of the American colonies..

America can't survive without nukes because it has done too much wrong and has too many enemies, to give you an example of such a power would be Germany.. Holding on to their nukes would just halt the destruction of the US, but letting them go would bring that destruction closer in time..

The only reason why America came out of the new economical collapse is due to two wars, not due to all internal policies, hence Bush knew the American economical collapse was near and made the best decision to save the country, terrorism as an excuse..

The American defense budget:


This military budget pays the salaries, training, and health care of uniformed and civilian personnel, maintains arms, equipment and facilities, funds operations, and develops and buys new equipment. The budget funds all branches of the U.S. military: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

Wikipedia




When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009 the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion,

Wikipedia



By the end of 2008, the U.S. had spent approximately $900 billion in direct costs on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Indirect costs such as interest on the additional debt and incremental costs of caring for the more than 33,000 wounded borne by the Veterans Administration are additional. Some experts estimate these indirect costs will eventually exceed the direct costs.[8]

Wikipedia


This money helps the American economy although some say this is the reason why America is collapsing, that is not true, because a lot of contractors benefit from this..

People forget too fast..


From what I understand in my history classes, the war was one of the reasons the Great Depression ended. World War Two gave jobs to thousands, if not millions, of people in the U.S. Soldiers were paid and some sent money home, men too old to be in the army replaced the men that were at war, and women worked in factories to build ailrplanes, ships, tanks, etc.



WWII created much needed jobs in factories involveing the production of war supplies. It jump started us out of the Great Depression and boosted the stock market. The second world war helped us become the strongest coutry we are today. By mobilizeing the unemployed, we aided our economy.



Although war is a time of hardships and usually poverty, World War 2 had many positive effects for America. One point of prosper was economy. Some said that the Second World War put an end to the Great Depression. Many of America�s products went overseas and by 1943, half of the country�s production went overseas. Americans were then forced to buy less of such products, but soon spent there money on things such as newspapers, movies, and promotion toward the war because of the shortage of supplies. From 1941-1944 newspapers sold daily increased four folds. Hollywood made over 2,500 motion pictures during the war also. In 1942, the War Advertising Council was formed. It conducted more than 100 campaigns to sell war bonds, secure blood donations, conserve food, and inspire enlistments. And with the change of spending money also came the change of earning money. Farmers made $20 billion in 1944 unlike the late 1930s, which had an average of only $8 billion. The war also caused a shortage of employees. This raised the annual earnings to $44 billion compared to 1939�s $13 billion. With the men gone at war, women would soon fill in those empty jobs to support their families. Government propaganda encouraged women to do their patriotic duty by leaving their homes and entering the workplace. At the wartime peak in July 1944, 19 million women were employed. But women workers weren�t the only group that enlarged during the war, but also child labor increased over two folds. Because of these factors, the average family income rose over 25% from 1941-1945. In the beginning of the war, 1941, the national income was around $95 billion dollars, but by 1944 it rose to $150 billion.


World War 2 greatly improved our economy. Women got the taste of working outside the home, the stock market was on the uprising again. People were starting to make money and become prosperous. The government used ads to help boost liberty bonds, blood donations,reserving supplies for the troops and the enterntainment industry. America proved to other nations that we are a strong country.
Germany was really on the back hand of the U.S.A 's stock market blunge. After the hyperinflation in germany the u.s.a gave out billions of marks worth of loans to help rebuild the economy. When the stock markets fell in the US the US demanded all there loans payed back ASAP. then germany was back to were it started.


It helped. Since people had saved up money, they could not spend it due to rationing, one sees the raise of exsesive buying. This incress in purchessing lead to more factory jobs, etc... Also now more and more women were joining the work force - again incressing production. Furthurmore the idea of the shopping mall spread from eight at the end of the WWII to 3,840 but 1960.



The U.S. was in large part lifted out of the great depression by selling strategic goods and materials like tools, machinery, petroleum, metals, and grain to both sides since we were neutral at first. Once we were sucked in by the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the economy shifted into overdrive and measures had to be taken to keep inflation from soaring out of control. After the war was over, the seeds of our modern "Consumer based" economy had been sown and grew like wildfire. Technology had taken great leaps forward. Before the war women rarely worked outside the home and only in limited professions. Afterwards the women who had worked to support the war and replace men in the Services liked the money and independence their own jobs gave them and they stayed in the workforce. Finally, we shifted in a massive way from mostly farming to mostly manufacturing jobs and services. Europe was devastated by the war but the U.S. emerged more militarily and economically powerful than ever.



Economists of the Keynesian school propagated this idea that World War 2 was good for the US economy. In particular, a government economist who did central planning and price fixing during the war named Paul Samuelson wrote economics textbooks that became widely used in schools. Most modern economists these days are not Keynesian. Destruction is never productive. War does not boost an economy. The benefits are short-lived and shallow. Many economists believed that FDR prolonged the depression for many years with his "New Deal" policies and therefore the depression lasted into World War 2. The war did not end the depression. The end of the war ended the depression.

WikiAnswers

"Creation out of Destruction"


ooz

[edit on 6-4-2010 by oozyism]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
The last thing Obama knows anything about is the military and if he has advisers that have proposed this poodle walking plan to Obama in hopes of winning the gleam of his Lordship, then this is the only way I can see Obama coming to such a retarded and ignorant decision.

This is proof once again that Obama is out of touch and once again undermines the safety of this nation. His plan is no plan, unless the plan was to place Obama in the presidency so that when we get nuked, Obama's job is to "SURRENDER" America with no figh whatsoever, because of course violence is so evil, and in Obama's mind we might as well be Red than Dead. Some leader huh?

Thanks for the posting.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
The only reason why America came out of the new economical collapse is due to two wars, not due to all internal policies, hence Bush knew the American economical collapse was near and made the best decision to save the country, terrorism as an excuse..

The American defense budget:


This military budget pays the salaries, training, and health care of uniformed and civilian personnel, maintains arms, equipment and facilities, funds operations, and develops and buys new equipment. The budget funds all branches of the U.S. military: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

Wikipedia




When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009 the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion,

Wikipedia



By the end of 2008, the U.S. had spent approximately $900 billion in direct costs on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Indirect costs such as interest on the additional debt and incremental costs of caring for the more than 33,000 wounded borne by the Veterans Administration are additional. Some experts estimate these indirect costs will eventually exceed the direct costs.[8]

Wikipedia

This money helps the American economy although some say this is the reason why America is collapsing, that is not true, because a lot of contractors benefit from this..


So you are suggesting that before vacating office Bush in his infinite wisdom saved the country from impending economic collapse by engaging in 2 wars? Thereby increasing government spending on defense and averting collapse of US economy?

Before I respond, I'd like to pick myself of the floor and wipe the coffee off my monitor and ensure I am framing your argument correctly?

[edit on 6-4-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Alright I'm confused...

Is Obama increasing his authority like Hitler or the opposite


DO some of you actually like the big brother you rail on against?

"Don't tread on me"

to

"Oh protect me" -

"Don't be a dictator by reducing your world ending authority"

"Stop government spending, but we actually need enough nukes to
blow up the world 300 times over as a opposed to 50"

So much confusion here

YOU DISTRUST HIM and HATE HIM

SO you want him to be more high on Nukes?



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by oozyism
 


My goodness, you sure said a mouthful. Personal insults and all, huh?
Whew.

No, it wasn't sarcasm. I absolutely meant it. Still mean it. Will always mean it.

All nations need to rid themselves of weapons of mass destruction. All Nations. If the U.S. can take even a baby step in promoting this, and making an example for others to follow, then this will be the best thing to come from this country .... maybe ever.

What the puzzling part of this is, sir, is how in the world could anybody object to a step towards a peaceful planet? or is it just because you don't like the source of the goodwill?

Hmmm?


No that is not called a baby step, you said rid of Nuclear weapons, how in God's name is this a step in riding the planet from nuclear weapons? This has nothing to do with riding nuclear weapons, read what it says..

Politicians lie, they been lying to you for along time now, one subject is covered by bring another subject up etc etc.. They will never answer a yes or no, and yet the American people who voted for these tards don't force them to at least tell the truth to their employers..

Seriously, how is this a step, you need to explain..



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 





So you are suggesting that before vacating office Bush in his infinite wisdom saved the country from impending economic collapse by engaging in 2 wars? Thereby increasing government spending on defense and averting collapse of US economy?

Before I respond, I'd like to pick myself of the floor and wipe the coffee off my monitor and ensure I am framing your argument correctly?



Bush? No Bush just made the decision, other intellects know how it goes, it isn't just the President lol I thought you would know that by now since I suppose you been living in America all your life..

The president simply chooses the recommendations given by economists, military advisors, etc etc and don't forget America is very wise, the example of that wisdom is your ignorance.. Keeping people ignorance, keeps the country united, so yes they are wise..

Politicians are magicians, they foul you and you won't even know, hence Iraq war, yes you got fouled, yes they are wise lol you don't believe me?


You are saying my theory is not plausible? I'll wait for your rebuttal but I'm not holding my breath..



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 



How is this a baby step?


You can't be serious. Actually, it's so obvious I would feel foolish trying to explain it, and can't wrap my head around the fact that you are genuine in your question.

So I will decline, leaving you with the thought that it should be obvious to you and anybody else who is interested in beginning the process for a *someday* future planet sans WMD's.

Really.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Mam I am honestly attempting to debate our differnce of opinion but you keep moving the goal posts.

First you state:


Originally posted by oozyism
The only reason why America came out of the new economical collapse is due to two wars, not due to all internal policies, hence Bush knew the American economical collapse was near and made the best decision to save the country, terrorism as an excuse...


Then when I clarify that you felt Bush was responsible for the wars (since you used HIS NAME and all) you reply:


Originally posted by oozyism
Bush? No Bush just made the decision, other intellects know how it goes, it isn't just the President lol I thought you would know that by now since I suppose you been living in America all your life...


Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Contradict yourself much?



...don't forget America is very wise, the example of that wisdom is your ignorance.. Keeping people ignorance, keeps the country united, so yes they are wise..


I honestly think your Jr. Analyst module needs a serious tune up. Oh I get it you hate me because I am ignorant and product of my wise country?


I'll wait for your rebuttal but I'm not holding my breath..

It was tempting to not reply, but PLEASE don't exhale just because I did.


[edit on 6-4-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I really don't understand what everyone's up in arms about. Does anyone seriously believe that if the United States were faced with an attack using biological or chemical weapons, that suddenly the American government would go impotent and just throw their hands up in frustration? We're not talking about legislation that is being pushed through the House and the Senate with no one seeing the paperwork. This is an executive amendment to a previous administration's position paper, nothing more. Are they standing executive orders responding to the deployment of WMDs on American soil, yes. Are they legally binding, no. This was a PR job (and a good one), plain and simple. I really can't stand 99% of what BHO does claiming it's for his constituents, but this isn't one of them. Believe me, if 100,000 people in this country suddenly contracted Botulism or showed symptoms of a chemical nerve agent, someone would get their faces nuked off, I don't care what he tells MSNBC.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by oozyism
 



How is this a baby step?


You can't be serious. Actually, it's so obvious I would feel foolish trying to explain it, and can't wrap my head around the fact that you are genuine in your question.

So I will decline, leaving you with the thought that it should be obvious to you and anybody else who is interested in beginning the process for a *someday* future planet sans WMD's.

Really.

If you can't explain something, that simply points to your lack of understanding, nothing much to say here..


[edit on 6-4-2010 by oozyism]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious


Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Contradict yourself much?




I honestly think your Jr. Analyst module needs a serious tune up. Oh I get it you hate me because I am ignorant and product of my wise country?




[edit on 6-4-2010 by kinda kurious]


I contradict myself? Bush is the president who chooses which recommendations to take, how is that a contradiction lol, wow


Bush made the decision, but now what you are trying to do is lure the topic to another direction, I still need that rebuttal.. If you agree to disagree then that is fine, but without that rebuttal your disagreement is mute..



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism


If you can't explain something, that simply points to your lack of understanding, nothing much to say here..


[edit on 6-4-2010 by oozyism]


Okay, then help me to understand. How are thermonuclear warheads a good thing ?

I would like to see them completely as obsolete, and to future generations as something people made once upon a time that proved to be very heinous contraptions, and were consequently gotten rid of when humanity came to it's senses. Better for everybody if they had never been invented.

This is my position. I applaud and celebrate anyone who has the guts to step up and start recognizing this, while putting their policies where their beliefs are.

Unless, of course, you also believe Hiroshima was a good thing.
If you do, please explain why.

I have given reasons here why I support the recent decision of the President.

Now, please give reasons why you believe these weapons are good things to maintain.

However, if you believe it is okay to indiscriminately mass murder huge numbers of people and destroy our planet in the process, then it's true that you and I have nothing left to discuss on this forum.

We are only beating a dead thermonuclear weapon, er I mean horse. I gather from some of your posts above, you prefer them because they are cheap and efficient?


edit to repair bbcodes.




[edit on 4/7/2010 by ladyinwaiting]



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join