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."

[ilovesarah2012]

Again, we knew how Obama felt about nuclear weapons BEFORE he was elected. I wish people would stop acting all surprised when Barry does what he said he was gonna do. The people (idiots) who voted for him didn’t care then and they don’t care now.

[MindBender26]

Best guess: When the Norks detonated a nuc, did Japan quietly make a few too?

[ScottinVA]

With this and the UN treaty on weapons ownership.. Obama has the gall to push these measures in the second half of an election year.. imagine what he`ll push for in Term #2.

[rurgan]

With this and the UN treaty on weapons ownership.. Obama has the gall to push these measures in the second half of an election year.. imagine what he`ll push for in Term #2.

Yeah and don’t forget that Obama passed the Dream act Amnesty by dictate. It bypassed Congress to decree Amnesty for illegals. Imagine what it will do in term 2.

[rustyboots]

I could live with 300 nuclear weapons if we have a president with the “stones” to use them when/if needed. Super accurate, advanced decoy devices to assist with reentry and defeat any anti-missile systems, combined with a willingness to use them at the slightest attack on any American interest, I could accept this low number.
But since we know there is NO Democrat with he “stones” to use force against anybody except what most of us refer to as patriotic American citizens, then I reckon we need to defeat this worthless oxygen thief and keep our level of nuclear weapons at at higher number; say about 5,000 and use them or other weapons as needed to protect America.

[RedMDer]

All contributions are for the Current Quarter Expenses.


Every time a Freeper or Lurker signs up to be a New Monthly Donor

A generous Freeper donates $10!!

Please sign up now!

[plain talk]

This is incorrect. Obama can not affect or control what other countries do. Obama is pursuing a world where the UNITED STATES has no nuclear weapons.

[lgjhn23]

Liberalism rots out the human brain rather quickly.
They’re going to get us all killed.

[mkjessup]

I could live with 300 nuclear weapons if we have a president with the “stones” to use them when/if needed. Super accurate, advanced decoy devices to assist with reentry and defeat any anti-missile systems, combined with a willingness to use them at the slightest attack on any American interest, I could accept this low number.

Don't kid yourself my FRiend, 300 nukes in an arsenal might be sufficient for perhaps a nation like Israel, or Japan, or even Britain or France who would most likely NOT be facing a future situation where they would have to engage in a literal global thermonuclear exchange with the only other true superpower (in terms of military hardware), i.e., Russia.

300 nukes would NOT be a sufficient deterrent to the Russians, because they know (as we do as well) that out of those 300 nukes, there have to be allowances made for the following potential conditions, should they be used:

- malfunction of the launch vehicle (if ICBM or SLBM)

- malfunction of the nuclear device itself (which is increasingly likely due to the lack of actual nuke testing of weapons in our inventory, to establish the potency of those warheads in 'active' service)

- interception of an incoming U.S. nuclear weapon by anti-missile defenses of the target nation.

- destruction of any number of those 300 nukes by a surprise attack.

Considering that Russia is in fact our most likely nuclear adversary should hostilities break out, 300 nukes would not even be sufficient to cover all the targets as designated in the SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan). On top of that, it has long been U.S. nuclear policy that IN the event of a nuclear war, that a certain percentage of warheads would be held back in reserve for the contingency of a second or even third retaliatory strike on our enemies, this is because you can bet the rent that among the potential targets that Moscow would be aiming at would be our nuclear research, development and production facilities, the Pantex site comes to mind. So whatever we have in inventory is very likely to be all that we have for any nuclear conflict. There won't be time or opportunity to "build more", we'll have to rely on whatever we have available.

You can bet the rent that if any executive shithead in the White House manages to roll back the total number of warheads in our inventory to as low as 300, they might as well just get rid of them all, because those 300 will be all but useless, why?

If you fire every one of those 300 warheads and assuming that every one of them explodes on target, what is our next step when the Russians respond with another 1000 warheads on U.S. soil?

That whole '300 warhead' gambit is nothing but setting us up for national suicide, i.e., Moscow informs us at some future point that if we launch ANY of those 300 warheads, they will respond with 10 for every 1 we launch.

In that scenario, our goose is cooked nuked.

[Rca2000]

I was born in 1967..at that time... during the JOHNSON administration...the US had over 31,000 nuclear warheads—and over 5000 were HIGH—YIELD bombs—some as high as 25MT!! Now, I realize that with modern targeting and guidance systems we do not need all that many high-yield bombs, BUT we should STILL have a “few” say 50 of them or more of at least 5MT—in case some really “serious crap” occurs—where we need to take out whole cities at once—and not just bases. I am SURE the Russkies still have some SS-18’s out there—loaded with the 25MT or larger”region killer” warhead, after all.... I feel we need something as capable as the Titian II—with it’s 9-10MT warhead, with modern technology,and maybe even a MARV RV,—as a “brute force” weapon—and to SHOW that “if you really mess with us we WILL mess BACK!!

I would say-—we should still maintain around 10K warheads—and their delivery vehicles—with at least 2500 of them over 500KT or so—and 100 or so—over 5MT or so...

[Chode]

the boy's attempt to destroy the country will escalate in direct proportion to his chances of reelection diminishing so as to do as much damage as possible before he's thrown out on his azz..

[Ouderkirk]

This is the proverbial finger in you eye from the spoiled child that is the pResident.

Whiel Iran and the Ruskies arm up...we stand down. That’s just marvelous.

[haircutter]

To All Those who support this jerk or who voted for him.....

DOES THIS SCARE YOU YET????

IT DAMN WELL BETTER SCARE YOU...

THIS JERK IS DANGEROUS....

[Jim Robinson]

He must be impeached!

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Bolton’s too much of an interventionist for my taste, but at least he believes in the need for a strong defense. Obama gives us the worst of both worlds- an international meddler who does not support the military strength to protect tha nation from the dangers inherent in endless crusades. Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to general war, but history and common sense make no impression on the hyper emotional, illogical leftist mindset.

[Jim Robinson]

The guy is a freaking idiot. And traitor. Impeach his ass!!

[LibFreeUSA]

If he plans on a nuclear-free world, that must mean that he plans on invading, taking control over, and dismantling the nuclear WMDs in... Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Israel, France, North Korea, Iran...

[PreciousLiberty]

“Of course, Barack has already said he’s taken the concept of a US nuclear response to ANY attacks off the table (at least with him as Commander in Chief).”

Could you please provide a citation for that? I’d be interested to see it.

[rustyboots]

You have some good points. I don’t want to go that low. And while you are right about the “problems” that could occur with just 300 warheads, I guess the main point would be to have a president with the courage to protect this country. I think we might be able to do with a smaller military if others were always afraid we would defend this country. Right now, with this oxygen thief, I don’t think the dog catch in any Iranian town is afraid of him.
Put money into R&D, always update and modernize our nuclear arsenal and it delivery systems, make damn sure the conventional side of our defense is modern, hard hitting and protective of our men. And always; the number 1 ROE, do what you need to do to insure minimum American casualties with maximum enemy casualties. And I really wouldn’t worry about “collateral damage.” Don’t even think about training our new “allies” to defend themselves. Afghanistan has proven what a great program that can be.
It isn’t so much we need 5,000, 10,000, or however many some people may suggest. Have enough to deter, and a willingness to make damn sure they KNOW we will use them.

[Thrownatbirth]

We're spending huge sums right now on OHIO Class and D5 missile replacement programs designed to maintain our undersea nuclear deterrence capability through 2080. We won't be firing paint balls.

Some things are wisely institutionalized enough to overcome and outlive four misguided years from a two-bit community organizer.