US plans 'dramatic reductions' in nuclear weapons

bbc.com ^ | 3/1/10

[ETL]

Thanks for the bump. But did you mean to link to post 135? 135 had to do with Farrakhan.

[onyx]

No, I said, from your posts about his Harvard writings to present, where I posted to you. I read them all. :)

[ETL]

These might be the ones you’re referring to:

“No-nukes” and ‘Communist Goals’:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2461645/posts?page=24#24

Obama on cutting our defenses (’no-nukes’):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2461645/posts?page=32#32

Obama’s “no-nukes” (pro-Soviet) writings from college:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2461645/posts?page=90#90

[onyx]

Trust me. It’s just good to see the information on one thread. We research and have a lot of the information saved on various threads and Word. Obama and his mendacious dealings are never-ending subject.

[ETL]

OK, thanks. I just wanted to clarify for those that you pinged not to go to post 135 (Farrakhan’s visit to Libya), since that was the post of mine that you replied to. :)

Thanks again!

[DesertRhino]

Thats such a downer,,, i saw “dramatic reduction” in our nukes. I thought FINALLY, a 40mm nuke round for the M203!! The grenadiers would have been so *very* happy.

[Enchante]

I say we should only reduce our nuclear arsenal by approx. 20-30 warheads —— all to be detonated on strategic sites in Iran

[ETL]

Sounds like a good idea to me, as long as we don’t kill any, or many, of the good people there protesting that government.

[ezfindit]

The Obamination is not only horribly incompetent and a radical Marxisist, but he is also SUICIDAL. This is insane!

[Gilbo_3]

well the good book does tell us that the many anti-Christs will boldly [if not inadvertantly] show the world what they are, but most will refuse to see the evil as the truth, and sadly, most of those will blindly follow it to ruin...

[grey_whiskers]

Treason...?

[metmom]

Just like Clinton, gutting the military. What is it with the dems? They truly do hate our country for some reason

This is only going to encourage more terrorist attacks as we will be (rightly) perceived as being emasculated.

Fortunately, gun and ammo sales are up and the individuals in this country have the means and wherewithal to defend themselves.

And if the SHTF, we’ll probably see an influx of those who were undecided, until only the hardcore refuse to believe the reality we are facing.

Another reason to keep being prepared.

[silverleaf]

You really should sign up to work for the DoD, since you have a firmer grasp of strategic defense requirements (current and future) than they do

Kilotonage is not the equation used to figure out weapon requirements.

Projecting ahead to 2030, if Tehran was our only target in the world, one reliable weapon might do it- now multiply that one weapon by what force planners' estimate they need to ensure at least one weapon reaches the target without technical failure or successful or partially successful enemy defense

now estimate the probability the target will not be hardened or dispersed or bogus due to bad intel or enemy deception, so that one weapons will do the job of 85% destruction of capability of that target ...ooops maybe now you need 50 weapons- for one target- known today How many targets in 2030?

Oops but what if our one weapon is a sub launched weapon and by 2030, enemy technical advances neutralize the capability of the sub force to operate freely and to launch before preemptive attack on them or on the weapons they carry Ooops, maybe for 2030 we need multiple weapons, multiple types, launched from multiple sites by multiple platforms, and capable of surviving a first strike against the US (hey, they won't DO that..will they?) So maybe we need 200 weapons, for one target. Just in case. Just to make sure one gets there and does the job.

Now, multiply Tehran by the number of targets in the militaries of Russia and China

Now add in the military production sites of Russia and China Now add in other strategic sites (bio/chem/WMD research and test sites? metals production? power productions? command and control sites of Russia and China?

Use WW2 Germany as an example- how many targets there? Should, only take one big bomb per power plant or command bunker-right? How many bombs? When did the bombs stop their fighting? OK, back to nukes.

Finished counting targets by China and Russia? Now add in any other country by 2030 that can launch an unacceptably damaging attack by any WMD on the US mainland.... define target sets....define damage criteria and probability of success to determine weapons needed for each target... proceed as above

wait, US nuke force determination we live with today was based on estimate for a strategic defense shield over parts of US and over our allies, reducing threat of nuke attack on US, or reducing effects (loss of our own weapons) if we get hit by first strike

Oh wait, obama stopped that strategic defense shield stuff over Europe- too provocative. Made russian targeting too complicated (see above).

and the defense shield over the U? on life support as every democrat admin tries to pull the plug. Now we are broke. Will we be strategically defended in 2030 or not? Gotta figure.

Wait again, todays' US force requirements were based on NO strategic defense shield over Russia or China or Tehran or?? What about 2030? They still have no strategic defense shield we have to penetrate, losing some weapons effects in the process and having to maintain our inventory numbers to compensate?

Oh wait. The Russians (and Chinese) won't DO that- they signed a treaty. We signed a treaty.

Ok, so plan they will HONOR the treaty (as history shows they have, sarc. OK so, strategic defense shield over Russia or her Allies (Tehran?) ... or not. Back to the drawing board.

Now, weapons reliability. Ours are aging. You wouldn't fly in an airplane as old as some of our nuke warheads. Things fail. The enemy has had 50 years to figure out how to dwfend against or defeat these weapons.

BUT no new nukes for us. We signed a treaty. No tests of the reliability of the old ones either. We signed a treaty. Ok so sometimes we run supercomputer simulations and then the Russians call us bad names. Boo hoo. So do the Chinese when they are not too busy running our supercomputer simulations for themselves (thanks to tech transfers by Clintonites).

So, no new generation nukes for Russia or China? (we signed a treaty) With mobile launchers, undetectable launch preps, and multiple independently targeted warheads...for them...RIGHT? They signed a treaty.

Now, decide whether you're willing to strategically defend an ally. Consider the source of their threats, targets etc. Start again at above. If not willing to go to the wall to defend allies like Israel and Europe, subtract allies from US force mix and US geopolitical suppport.

But hey, don't confuse obama with facts. His anti-war mind was made up by 1980 (ELIMINATE US NUKES- unilaterally as an example to the rest of the world - take the moral high road - the world will LOVE US - and if they don't- WE HAVE IT COMING TO US FOR ALL THE EVIL WE HAVE DONE

[Wildbill22]

High Treason.

This is the equivelant of putting a “no guns in this house” sign on my lawn.

Bad guys will love us. Either Obama is Bad (with malicious intent for this country), or stupid.

[nw_arizona_granny]

Just like Clinton, gutting the military. What is it with the dems? They truly do hate our country for some reason<<<

In my opinion, it is the communist way to hate us, for we offer something that they are expected to work for, if they want to enjoy it and those get rid of the weapons and military, have never shoveled......or worked with their back and hands, they are brainwashed ‘thinkers’.

[happygrl]

The new strategy will also seek to abandon plans put in place by the previous administration to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons for penetrating underground targets known as "bunker busters."

The officials say the strategy will be an important step towards Mr Obama's declared aim of reversing the spread of nuclear weapons and seeking a world without them.

He's setting us up.

Then comes the spike.

[MichiganConservative]

How is he going to reduce the stockpile? Use them domestically?

“Take that flyover country!” Ears the Devourer of economies shouted as he pushed the button. Nancy Pelosi cackled in her straight jacket.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!