Obama's Plan For World Without Nuclear Weapons—Ours (he must be defeated)

Investors Business Daily ^ | 7-7-2012 | Investors Business Daily

[no-llmd]

The Obama Record: In pursuit of a world without nuclear weapons, the president finalizes plans to decimate our nuclear deterrent and reduce our warhead count beyond even treaty commitments. (snip) President Obama has decided that indeed we are going to tempt them with weakness. According to an Associated Press report on conversations with current and former administration officials, Obama is finalizing plans, perhaps to be released later this month, to cut the U.S. nuclear arsenal to between 1,000 and 1,100 warheads with the goal "in the longer term, (of) eliminating nuclear weapons."

[MindBender26]

Planned by Stalin, Moscow metro was supposed to shelter most of the city’s population in case of nuclear war. Just look at how deep the central stations are, and you’ll see I’m not exaggerating.

If you look closely in the passages, you’ll see that most of them have metal sections. These sections actually hide metal blast doors that will seal off the stations in case of WWIII.

[mkjessup]

How could the Soviet Union “absorb” an attack of 300 strategic warheads?

The old Soviet Union had (and presumably still has) a highly developed civil defense organization, with hardened facilities designed specifically for “absorbing” an attack.

Urban industrial centers, transportation, command centers, power stations, oil production plants, ports, shipyards, military bases, farms, etc would all be targeted.

That is common practice in nuclear OR non-nuclear warfare.

The resulting nuclear fallout and food shortages would be devastating. The enormous destruction of population, infastructure and economic potential would cripple the Soviet Union.

Sounds like you bought into that whole "nobody wins a nuclear war" propaganda circulated by the left over the decades. The fact is, depending upon the level of preparation, “absorbing” a nuclear attack IS possible, “surviving” it is well within the realm of possibility, and that means that a nation CAN “prevail”, unless they lack the national will and cajones to do so.

One of many studies conducted by the Rand Corporation for the Defense Department during the Nixon Administration determined that if an unlimited nuclear exchange had occurred between the United States and the Soviet Union in the early 70's, that even after a massive 'bolt from the blue' first strike by the Soviets, that not only would the U.S. prevail and win such a conflict, they determined that even based on the worst possible scenario, that America would have been able to re-establish a 1965 per-capita standard of living within a 10 year period following such a war.

I remember 1965 pretty damn well, and I think we could live with that.

[moonshot925]

You must look at the long term effects on the Soviet Union/Russia.

300 nuclear detonations would inject million of tons of black carbon into the stratosphere.

Temperatures would plummet to below average levels.

The growing season would shorten by 10-30 days resulting in widespread crop failures.

Food shortages would kill of a very large percentage of the Soviet/Russian population.

[mkjessup]

You must look at the long term effects on the Soviet Union/Russia.

Ok Sparky, let's play.

300 nuclear detonations would inject million of tons of black carbon into the stratosphere.

Unproven. It all depends on the proximity of the warhead to the target, i.e., the closer to the target as in a land burst, the dirtier the explosion, the higher above the target, the 'cleaner' the explosion. And existing weather conditions at the time of detonation is a variable that cannot be accurately predicted.

Temperatures would plummet to below average levels.

Sounds like someone has been watching too many re-runs of that '83 anti-nuclear scare-'em-to-death flick 'The Day After'. That theory too, remains unproven.

The growing season would shorten by 10-30 days resulting in widespread crop failures.

Again that is speculation based upon the unproven theories of global temperature declines following a thermonuclear exchange. It also presumes that the Soviets would not have taken steps to secure alternate sources of grain and foodstuffs, even if it meant raiding their Eastern European slave states for the benefit of Mother Russia.

Food shortages would kill of a very large percentage of the Soviet/Russian population.

The Russians endured 20 million+ casualties in World War II, plus the wholesale murder and massacre of innocent citizens during Stalin's purges, foot shortages and the resulting death toll would not be anything unfamiliar, nor unexpected among the Russian population.

[MindBender26]

It’s the old Jane Fonda “Nuclear Winter - We’ll All Die” BS.

[moonshot925]

It’s the old Jane Fonda “Nuclear Winter - We’ll All Die” BS.

Nuclear winter was greatly exaggerated in the 1980's by Turco, Toon, Ackerman, Pollack, and Sagan. They predicted that temperatures would fall by 35C which is complete garbage. They wanted unilateral disarmament on our side so that the Soviets could hold us hostage.

Sagan even predicted in 1991 that a nuclear winter would be caused by the fires of Iraqi oil wells. He later admitted he was wrong.

Most of official liberal "scientists" now predict that global temperatures would fall by 7C to 8C in a limited nuclear war. However, they might just be manipulating the data to push their alarmist agenda.

But still, there are examples of volcanic eruptions which casued small scale nuclear winters.

The "Year Without a Summer" of 1816 was due to the eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia the year before.

The eruption of Krakatau (Krakatoa) in 1883 caused global cooling.

The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 cooled global temperatures for a couple of years.

[moonshot925]

Unproven. It all depends on the proximity of the warhead to the target, i.e., the closer to the target as in a land burst, the dirtier the explosion, the higher above the target, the 'cleaner' the explosion. And existing weather conditions at the time of detonation is a variable that cannot be accurately predicted.

That is true. But we saw what happened when Little Boy detonated 1,900 feet over Hiroshima. A huge firestorm engulfed the city and burned 65% of it to the ground. The large amounts of soot released blocked sunlight and darkened the sky.

Again that is speculation based upon the unproven theories of global temperature declines following a thermonuclear exchange. It also presumes that the Soviets would not have taken steps to secure alternate sources of grain and foodstuffs, even if it meant raiding their Eastern European slave states for the benefit of Mother Russia.

We had plans to nuke the crap out of East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and Albania. Storming those countries would not do the Soviets much good.

The Russians endured 20 million+ casualties in World War II, plus the wholesale murder and massacre of innocent citizens during Stalin's purges, foot shortages and the resulting death toll would not be anything unfamiliar, nor unexpected among the Russian population.

It is true. The Soviet Union lost 26.6 million people dead in WW2. That was 13.5% of their 1939 population. It took 15 years to recover from that. Soviet agricultural output from 1945 to 1960 was much lower than expected.

Today, the 30 largest cities in Russia hold about 35% of the Russian population. Let's say that 300 warheads were expended on these cities, 10 for each. 10 high-yield nuclear detonations on each city cause giant firestorms which incinerate the population.

The deaths from famine, drought and fallout would probably be even higher than the deaths from the nuclear war.

Russia would be crippled and who knows if it would even be possible to recover. Much worse than WW2.