Posted on 07/16/2008 4:13:12 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Why not? We’ll need a project to focus on once he eliminates poverty and disease. CJ calls it a campaign “promise” but I think it falls under the heading of feelgood utopian nonsense to which everyone aspires and which no one is expected to take seriously. He mentioned it in his big warmed-over Iraq speech yesterday too. Hope + change = crazy delicious nukeless world:
Beyond taking these immediate, urgent steps, it’s time to send a clear message: America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we must retain a strong deterrent. But instead of threatening to kick them out of the G-8, we need to work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert; to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material; to seek a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons; and to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global. By keeping our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we’ll be in a better position to press nations like North Korea and Iran to keep theirs. In particular, it will give us more credibility and leverage in dealing with Iran.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
This has already been tried by the late, great Ronald Reagan.
India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea are not signatories to the NPT.
Aren’t our nukes already off hair-trigger alert?
Also, will Barry Hussein Obama send over some friendly diplomats to talk to the nice people in Russia who transport nuclear substances into other countries such as England/GB in order to poison “enemies”? Bombs aren’t the only nucular weapons out there.
Why didn’t anyone ever think of this before?
Well, the ICBM's are supposed to be 'de-targeted', as in not aimed at a particular target. But anybody with a desktop computer & a cable modem knows how fast a target can be loaded. I suppose 'de-targeting' might marginally increase the safety in case of 'accidental launch' -- if something like that were possible. This marginal increase in safety is typical of Clinton 'feel-good' policy. He loved to crow about it.
AFAIK, there are no strategic bombers on alert status.
There are supposed to be additional safeties on SLBM launch sequencing. But you still have Trident subs on patrol.
Memo to Hussein : We are Not the problem You and the liberals(code word) of the Earth are the problem here.
Somebody cue John Lennon’s “Imagine.”
The more parties have nuclear weapons, the smaller the advantage gained by any particular party who has them.
For us to unilaterally disarm would greatly increase the value of nuclear weapons to any country considering their acquisition.
BTW, the same principle also exists on a smaller scale, but liberals are equally blind to it there. If all potential victims are disarmed, a pistol will be an enormous boon to a thief, since he can use it to attack anyone with impunity. If potential victims are armed, however, then even a robber with a pistol would risk getting shot. The only way to avoid getting shot would be to avoid participating in crimes where a pistol would be useful.
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.