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 in Berlin (Nuc. Arsenal Reduction, Free Trade Zone etc)

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Obama in Berlin 06/19/2013


Obamas Speech in Berlin

Good evening everybody,

well it's evening in germany anyway

I've got the full transcript of Pres. Barack Obamas Speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin from today and I'm really surprised that some of what he said isn't news here.

Some excerpts:
Reducing the nuclear Arsenal of the United States up to 1/3
Holding a conference in 2016 for a new Anti-Nuke Contract to stop building more fission material
Ending the War on Terror and closing down Guantanmo
Getting the free trade zone between Europe and America going

Feel free to read it, from a european (german) perspective it was a nice speech, nothing like Kennedys or Reagans Speeches in Berlin but it wasn't that bad and the messages from it are a nice touch too. But...
Some of what he said reads like he wants a "One world government" nothing he says aloud, but you can read it between the lines sometimes. So, whats the opinion on it over the pond?




posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   


Reducing the nuclear Arsenal of the United States up to 1/3


That is ridiculous the US the only country in the world is not modernizing and building new ones.

Meanwhile the rest of the world is increasing theirs.

Really what the hell is he thinking?

Give up ours the rest of the world will?

Hell no they won't the only thing he has done, and continues to do is paint a target on our backs.
edit on 19-6-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


How many do you need? You still have enough to wipe every living creature off the face of the earth.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Yep and with every word that comes out of his mouth, said target gets larger and larger. I think after the five plus years in office he has become paranoid.

-SAP-
edit on 19-6-2013 by SloAnPainful because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by neo96
 


How many do you need? You still have enough to wipe every living creature off the face of the earth.


Enough to destroy potentially ever country in the middle east and Europe and other parts of the globe.

That is the way MADD works besides its not like you can build a nuke and it still be good 50 years later with that age that increases the cost of maintaining them.

Then there are newer icbms like Russian ss-27's,ss-29s complete with decoys etc. so is the US 'safer' if it completely gave up its aging nuclear arsenal?

Hell no they aren't.

Edited once again to add this:


For two decades, U.S. administrations have confronted the decrepit, neglected state of the aging nuclear weapons complex.


Here is some 'sensationalism'


There is no official price tag for the effort to upgrade and maintain the 5,113 warheads in the inventory, to replace old delivery systems and to renovate the aging facilities where nuclear work is performed. A study this summer by the nonpartisan Stimson Center, a Washington think tank, estimated costs would be at least $352 billion over the coming decade to operate and modernize the current arsenal. Others say the figure could be far higher, particularly if the work is delayed even longer.


Which is 35 billion over 10 years and they blow more on studying cowfarts.

But this :

Source

The timing does not fit with the nation’s evolving defense posture, either. Over the past decade, the U.S. military has moved away from nuclear deterrence and major military interventions in favor of more precise tactics rooted in Special Operations forces and quick tactical strikes deemed more effective against today’s enemies.


And there is the real deal behind the administration 'reductions' nukes have only been used twice since they were created.

Spec ops have been used ad nauseum personally I'd rather have a killer hardly used nuclear arsenal than using spec ops and drones intervening every day for anything.
edit on 19-6-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join