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 buddhasystem
Originally posted by 12.21.12
reply to post by buddhasystem
Sorry my friend. But I did not just crawl out from under a rock.
You mentioned that rock twice but it doesn't add anything at all to the substance of the discourse here. You didn't provide any facts in support of your pretty sensational statement about US selling its stockpile of nukes to a third party, and I called you out on this. But of course you have your rock and all.
Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Mak Manto
Without a doubt, if a nuclear weapon is used against a country, it could ignite a World War III.
"Could," maybe. Likely? Nope.
WWIII will begin with a "proxy" war that is not quickly concluded. It will escalate until tactical nukes and EMP devices are employed in the battle theater. After that, it won't really matter.
jw
Originally posted by centurion1211
Originally posted by Mak Manto
I agree.
This is a good move. Nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous. We need to be pulling away from these kinds of weapons.
No one wins in a nuclear war.
Simple question requiring what should be simple logic to answer:
What happens if no other country with nukes gets rid of theirs just because the U.S. does?
Originally posted by 12.21.12
You did not call me out on anything. Unless you know something that I don't.
Do I think they are selling? Sure do. But looting would probably be a more appropriate term.
Originally posted by jdub297
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by Southern Guardian
Exactly.
They arent saying 'disarm', they are saying reduce.
Really?
What does Obama mean when he says in plain English:
?
... his goal of abolishing nuclear weapons altogether ... .
Deny ignorance.
jw
....his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.
Originally posted by suicydking
A little perspective:
The US built more than 70,000 nuclear warheads between 1945 & 1990 at a cost of 6 trillion dollars.
Moscow, Oct. 31, 2008
Russia insisted its nuclear weapons are secure, and rejected the allegations by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates that large amounts of Russian nuclear weapons had been stolen or misplaced.
US defense secretary Robert Gates has said that some Russian nuclear weapons from the former Soviet arsenal might not be fully accounted for.
“What worries me are the tens of thousands of old nuclear mines, nuclear artillery shells and so on, because the reality is the Russians themselves probably don’t have any idea how many of those they have or, potentially, where they are,” he added.
Negotiated ( by George Bush) and signed in 1991, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) is scheduled to expire in December, 2009. Under the accord the US and Russia have significantly reduced their number of nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles.
American and international investigators say that they have found the electronic blueprints for an advanced nuclear weapon on computers that belonged to the nuclear smuggling network run by Abdul Qadeer Khan.
Originally posted by DevilJin
Originally posted by suicydking
A little perspective:
The US built more than 70,000 nuclear warheads between 1945 & 1990 at a cost of 6 trillion dollars.
That is insane. Bigger insane spending have happened though. 6 trillion could have gone into space exploration or (whispers) to benefit the people.
So you agree that there is a chance that using such a weapon could ignite such a war.
Why take the chance?
We need disarmament, people. The United States is not king of the world. We all live here. One country cannot enforce the policies of all the nations.
Nuclear weapons have to be cut drastically.
maybe we should include the next few words in your excerpt...
....his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.
Last time I checked...Obama wasn't a European official.
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I swear folks want things to be as they were during the cold war.
A little perspective:
The US built more than 70,000 nuclear warheads between 1945 & 1990 at a cost of 6 trillion dollars.
Originally posted by jdub297
You don't get results like that from capitulation and unilateral concessions.
Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by suicydking
A little perspective:
The US built more than 70,000 nuclear warheads between 1945 & 1990 at a cost of 6 trillion dollars.
A little more complete perspective:
Under START 1991, George H. W. Bush began drastic reductions of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. (Why do you think Russia had to dismantle the SS-23, and replace it with the Iskander SS-26? YOU DON'T KNOW, do you? Or just don't want to say it.)
jw
[edit on 21-9-2009 by jdub297]