Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

In your opinion, should we follow obama in disarming our Nukes?


Mr. T

Recommended Posts

President Obama's ambitious plan to begin phasing out nuclear weapons has run up against powerful resistance from officials in the Pentagon and other U.S. agencies, posing a threat to one of his most important foreign policy initiatives.

 

 

Our strategic nuclear forces are 20 percent of what they were two decades ago, but global nuclear proliferation has continued to spread like a bad virus.

 

 

This was an inevitable confrontation between the military and the administration. Defense planners are pulling their hair out trying to balance rising nuclear powers like China, North Korea, and Iran, while maintaining the razor thin deterrence equation with Russia that has kept America safe for six decades. Targets are skyrocketing, nuclear assets needed to neutralize targets are plummeting. The military is tackling the nuclear posture review with hardnosed strategic realities, like counterforce planning, contingencies in the event that deterrence fails, and continued protection of non-nuclear allies, while the White House seems to be running their whole nuclear-disarmament initiative off a grossly simplified talking point, that nukes are bad.

 

If the White House's stance on disarmament is indeed that elementary, we might have a real problem. For better or for worse, America's mighty strategic vanguard has served as one of the most powerful global stabilization tools in history. We shouldn't abandon it simply to appease a gaggle of Scandanavian peaceniks, nor should we sacrifice America's security because we're off chasing utopian fantasies.

 

We wont be fooled Again?

 

 

Obumly's actions are doing everything he can to destroy this great nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seriously? we will NEVER totally disarm in all reality. A reduction helps only in terms of PR and management/upkeep costs. WITHOUT the nuclear problem the former Russia and the U.S. would have come to blows decades ago....... the only major conflicts have been between third world and middle eastern countries. None had the the potential to go nuclear with each other..... Pakistan and India would still be fighting had it not been for the nuclear option. Its works and its not going anywhere.........unfortunately.

 

this does not even count biological warfare........ Its crazy really but the ultimate fear reprisals are what keeps the major superpowers in check.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seriously? we will NEVER totally disarm in all reality. A reduction helps only in terms of PR and management/upkeep costs. WITHOUT the nuclear problem the former Russia and the U.S. would have come to blows decades ago....... the only major conflicts have been between third world and middle eastern countries. None had the the potential to go nuclear with each other..... Pakistan and India would still be fighting had it not been for the nuclear option. Its works and its not going anywhere.........unfortunately.

 

this does not even count biological warfare........ Its crazy really but the ultimate fear reprisals are what keeps the major superpowers in check.......

 

If you recall, it's called MAD. (Mutually Assured Destruction).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you recall, it's called MAD. (Mutually Assured Destruction).

 

I know diehard i just thought the post was so out there i figured it needed more than an acronym to respond to it. Love em or hate them (which I personally have both feelings) they work and what is responsible for holding in check another world war. That does not really say much for us as a species..... pretty barbaric still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Sev here, there is no way in hell all the nukes are going away. Do you know how much the US and Russia has invested in them? It\'s a PR move to keep everyone busy while Congress rapes and robs us. When some of our like allies Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Ukraine and the US attribute for 70% of uranium production, you really never relinquish that advantage.

 

And having 12,000 nukes vs. 10,000 doesn't matter. One of those f*ckers would be disastrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should remember that we are the only nation to use two of these bad boys.

 

 

On another note, just having the nukes keeps other nations in check and allows us to be able to stay as a super power. I cant remember who said it but it carries a lot of weight, our nukes is our gold. Maybe thats why there is no longer any gold in Ft Knox. We dont have to back the dollar with gold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should remember that we are the only nation to use two of these bad boys.

 

 

On another note, just having the nukes keeps other nations in check and allows us to be able to stay as a super power. I cant remember who said it but it carries a lot of weight, our nukes is our gold. Maybe thats why there is no longer any gold in Ft Knox. We dont have to back the dollar with gold.

 

actually T you and I agree 1000% on something. consumer confidence is based on part that the government is stable, and our currency valuation is TOTALLY based on the belief that our government can repay the "value"..... its not gold nor is it economic return but that the U.S. will stay in power over its people and be able to threaten anyone in the world with Nukes...... Its not warm and fuzzy but whatever works in a world that does not have a consistent moral compass........ you never can know what the next crazy dictator/despot/criminal/religous/governmental leader might do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...