Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hagel's No-Nukes "Global Zero": They Cheat, We Don't
The Gatestone Institute ^ | January 9, 2013 | Peter Huessy

Posted on 01/11/2013 8:04:16 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

Generally it means that even the severely reduced number of warheads deployed in our arsenal would not -- if they were needed in a crisis -- be available for use. If that in fact took place -- with countries hostile to the US having arsenals in excess of the US force -- it would probably be in irresistible invitation to them to attack.

Former Senator Chuck Hagel, nominated to be Secretary of Defense, is also a signatory of what is known as the "Global Zero" plan. It calls for the United States and Russia to begin comprehensive nuclear arms negotiations in early 2013 to achieve zero nuclear weapons worldwide by 2030 in four phases.

The first phase would be a reduction of the US nuclear arsenal to 1,000 weapons from its current level -- some number slightly less than 5,000 warheads. While the US has now deployed 1,550 strategic nuclear weapons, the new total would include stored and reserve weapons, as well as warheads considered tactical and deployed in Europe, and therefore not regulated by current arms control agreements. By way of comparison, the former head of the US Strategic Command laid out in a summer 2012 essay the comparable Russian arsenal, which he estimated was probably in excess of 10,000 nuclear warheads -- a number considerably higher than many current and previous estimates of the Russian nuclear arsenal, and nearly twice that of the United States.

The Global Zero plan first would remove all US tactical nuclear weapons from US combat bases in Europe to storage facilities in the United States. However, while these tactical US weapons would no longer be able to defend Europe and NATO, Russians weapons would be able to attack all of Europe in a relatively short time -- launching weapons from bases in Russia...

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; Russia
KEYWORDS: china; chuckhagel; disarmament; hagel; nucleardisarmament; nuclearweapons; obama; russia
Beyond belief!!
1 posted on 01/11/2013 8:04:19 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nachum


2 posted on 01/11/2013 8:18:53 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
It amazes me that we every had arms treaties. After all, we spent USSR into its demise. So why does this make sense now?

Oh, wait a minute. We are the socialists now, and we can't afford to protect ourselves any longer.

Patton was right about picking a fight with the Huns at the end of WWII. We should have kicked their socialist asses and ended their evil ideology before it widely spread to our government schools.

3 posted on 01/11/2013 8:35:51 PM PST by ConservativeInPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Pat Buchanan and virtually the entire Paleo movement has once again proven taht they hate Israel and want to surrender to Islamists more than they love America.

4 posted on 01/11/2013 10:29:15 PM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

One thing that really is starting to bother me is the whole WHY of OUR nuclear disarmament....

Did we sign some treaty with some unknown third party in the 1950s that is only now coming to fruition?

This concerns me greatly, there seem to be no real reason to our disarmament in the fact of a world that is very unstable, it is not us causing the instability but the other small pukes out there..

Who sold us out and when did they do this?

Also were the Russians sold out too?

5 posted on 01/11/2013 10:39:49 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The Russians are going to keep a couple of thousand nukes in reserve no matter what we do or what agreement we make. If they gave up all of their nukes, China and even NK would be the powers in the world. Nothing would stop China from taking Siberia.

The US would become an agricultural colony of China if we went to NukeZero.

6 posted on 01/12/2013 7:28:10 AM PST by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

The only ways to achieve the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons:

1) SDI

2) obliterating the nuclear capability of nations other than the US, and thereafter to restrict and control the expertise required to reproduce the technology.

Thanks 2ndDivisionVet.

7 posted on 01/12/2013 9:59:57 AM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

SDI is one defense, but it is not 100% effective. One nuke can wreck your day and your city. Israel knows this which is why they have a major nuclear weapons supply, enough to ensure the total destruction of any enemy country that attacks them.

We are not going to be able to destroy any nuclear weapons of Russia, Red China, No. Korea, or Pakistan. Iran, maybe, if we didn’t have a communist coward in the White House.

We simply do not know about every secret nuclear facility in these countries. Every time some Democrat liberal/leftist told us that the Soviet Union didn’t have an arms buildup beyond what they said it was, they were proven wrong.

This was especially true when the “B-Team” report of Lt. Gen. Daniel Graham (a friend of mine) and John Collins (Library of Congress), showed in 1976, from publicly available materials, that the Soviets were secretly spending not $3-7% of their GNP on an arms buildup, but from 10-15% or MORE on it, and had been for many years, if not decades.

A late friend of mine once wrote “You can trust the Communists to be Communists” and it has been proven true on a regular basis throughout the years (That is why Jimmy Carter got beaten in 1980. He refused to recoginize the truth, hired anti-defense idiots for DOD and State (Brezninksi, Christopher, Vance, etc).

Obama is just like Carter, but more ideologically opposed to US might than Jimmy of the Attack Rabbit. Panetta had some guts but not much. Dempsey, a total disgrace as the cowardly leader of the JCS. Brennan at Intelligence? You’ve got to be kidding? Kerry as Secy State? Why not just dig up Benedict Arnold and nominate him? Hillary Clinton?

Show me one major success she has had - Libya? Mali? (ah the French have actually started to fight there), Iran? Syria? Afghan Taliban (Obama says they have been driven out of power in Afghanistan; our troops say exactly the opposite: Who would you trust, our troops or Obama?

Chavez is still in power in Venezuela, now a marxist state in creation. Same for the wacked out Morales in Bolivia and Correa in Ecuador, with Kirchner next in Argentina. Ortega still runs Nicaragua as does the Marxist FLMN in El Salvador. The Castro boys just won’t die.

Hagel is a disaster in the making for America. Kerry has been a disaster for America since his Vietnam days. Brennan is a disaster and the best gift we can give Al Qaeda and the Moslem Brotherhood.

We had better keep a very strong nuclear arsenal on all levels or we are toast. Red China can afford to lose half its population in a surprise attack and counterattack. We can’t.

Israel can’t afford a nuclear attack at all. They are prepared for it. We are not and under Obama, surrender will be the only alternative, which is not far from what he is doing now at a slower pace.

Only the strong survive!

8 posted on 01/12/2013 9:33:18 PM PST by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MadMax, the Grinning Reaper

Oh, I’m 100% in favor of keeping our arsenal, and I’m also 100% in favor of destroying our enemies — and then building SDI, and *still* keeping our arsenal. The world will have peace once we have superior firepower, or as GWB put it, military superiority beyond question.

9 posted on 01/13/2013 9:49:22 AM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
They're trying to reload us with the asymmetry the SS-20 was supposed to introduce, basically laying Europe's throat bare, or nearly so, against Soviet IRBM's with very short flight times.

And this is IMHO American Communists in government doing this. Hagel is their toy, made available by an apparent McCainiac "mavericky" urge, and a need for 'Rat approval.

Was Hagel ever in a prison camp?

10 posted on 01/14/2013 5:03:54 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeInPA
Patton was right about picking a fight with the Huns at the end of WWII.

Terminology: "Huns" were Nazi Germans, and before that, imperial German Army troops (aka "Boches").

The Soviets were always "Reds", "Communists", or "Siberian hordes". Their army was formally known as the Red Army, going back to the Bolsheviks and 1918. The Russian army today still carries their World War II red banners along with their Russian national and military unit banners.

11 posted on 01/14/2013 11:45:44 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson