Obama Is Dead Wrong on Nuclear Weapons

FoxNews ^ | 10 April 2009 | James P. Pinkerton

[Innovative]

President Obama can overspend, overtax, over-regulate, and over cap-and-trade, and yet America will undoubtedly survive. We might be worse off - probably will be worse off - but our Republic will endure.

But if Obama - or any other president - mishandles national security badly enough, well, that could be the end of our country.

[Innovative]

I searched and didn't see it posted.

Pinkerton is right on the money.

[rockabyebaby]

Obama Is Dead Wrong on Nuclear Weapons

Obama Is Dead Wrong on Nuclear Weapons EVERYTHING.

Fixed it!

[trumandogz]

Which brings me to my point: Obama is dangerously dead wrong on the issue of nuclear weapons, specifically, his goal of, “a world without nuclear weapons.

Is Obama the first president to call for a “a world without nuclear weapons?"

[trumandogz]

“Ronald Reagan called for the abolishment of “all nuclear weapons,” which he considered to be “totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.”

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/6731276.html

[Tallguy]

In a mathematics class we had a demonstration of Game Theory involving 2 students. Each would simultaneously right a letter on the blackboard. It would either be a letter “C” for “Cooperate” or a “backward letter C” which stood for “Defect” (a backward letter C was used to make the sound of the chalk the same). Each player got 1 point if they both “cooperated”, but if one player “defected” while the other opted to “cooperate”, the defector got 2 points and the other zero. If both defected, they each got zero points.

Eventually both students learn to cooperate and the defections get fewer. This is fine for a 2 party game. But make this a multiplayer game with the stakes being undisputed nuclear hegemony (infinite points) and you can quickly see the childishness of Obama’s proposal.

[Innovative]

Reagan may have called for the abolishment of all nuclear weapons, but he didn’t think the way to do it is to unilaterally disarm the US, as Obama is intending to do.

Reagan was the one who started the development of the Ballistic Missile Defense for the US and would not give it up.

Reagan understood that you have to negotiate from strength.

Obama wants to strip the US naked, and hope that when others see how weak we become, others won’t attack us. Weakness is provocative and it encourages, not deters adversaries, such as N Korea, Iran, Somalia and terrorists in general.

[andy58-in-nh]

A world free from nuclear weapons is a wonderful goal, but it is unachievable. The genie is out of the bottle. Even if we were to advance defensive technology to such a degree that it made nuclear missiles useless as tools of state policy, the threat would remain from lower technology options. A single container ship or truck laden with a deadly nuclear cargo could do enormous damage, defense against which is problematic, to say the least. Irrational human behavior, including the willingness of some to kill and risk death for an ideological cause or religious faith, is a problem for which we have not adequately prepared. But is it one for which we ever fully can?

I'll leave that last question for others to answer.

[freekitty]

Yes he is.

[FrankR]

Other than communitively organizing ACORN to push him to the White House, what has commiebama been right on?

This man's whole life an career has been dedicated to getting around the rules and gathering unto himself all of the entitlements available to minorities.

He seems to be willing to climb a tall, tall tree to tell a lie, when he could tell the truth on the ground.

His smooth croon and ability to read teleprompters has snowed a lot of people; some of them are still so enamored that a black (half) has been elected pres_ent, they are paying no attention whatsoever to what is happening the US, or the world...and they don't care.

A person hiding behind all that secrecy, and lying this much, has GOT to have something evil and sinister in his closet...and he's about to unleash the Kracken on the USA.

[SVTCobra03]

0bama is wrong and the rest of us are going be dead.

[The Sons of Liberty]

This is exactly correct. All you have to do is imagine Iran or North Korea with nukes, and us without. Is Barry such an idiot that he doesn’t think they wouldn’t blackmail us, or worse, use them on us knowing we couldn’t retaliate in kind?

[dajeeps]

Nice idea, but we can’t unring the bell. It’s sort of along the lines of gun laws. If we outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have them.

[Psycho_Bunny]

This guy does so much wrong that we should have posting guidelines stating we can only start threads with articles regarding what he does right.

[The Great RJ]

However, in game theory even with two parties there is always the incentive to cheat unless the consequences of cheating are mutually bad for both parties then a Nash equilibrium is achieved. If one party thinks they can cheat and get away with it they will.

[Tallguy]

Good point. I always thought that the “outcome table” was rigged in favor of cooperation. As a strictly academic exercise it was successful, however.

[Constitutional Patriot]

“Is Obama the first president to call for a “a world without nuclear weapons?” “

Probably not. I’m looking forward to a President to call for a world without marxists.

[dsc]

“If we outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have them.”

When I was in college, I actually had a professor pull me aside after class, say he figured I was the right guy to ask, and inquire as to the meaning of that statement.

He wasn’t jerking me around, either. He really didn’t get the point.

He also insisted on pronouncing Don Quixote “Don Kwixot,” on the grounds that we anglicize everything anyway.