US weighing steep nuclear arms cuts

Associated Press ^ | 14 Feb 2012 | ROBERT BURNS

[rarestia]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.

Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama's 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.

No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to: 1,000 to 1,100; 700 to 800, and 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.

The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.

[rarestia]

THIS is treason! He is deliberately bringing us back to the Stone Age.

Where the Hell are the Joint Chiefs?!

[rarestia]

Duplicate... please pull. Sorry.

[jersey117]

Where the Hell are the Joint Chiefs?!

The whole damn country's been hijacked and we're going to get it back in November.

[edpc]

The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons.....

I'm fine with this, so long as the 'reductions' consist of launches at certain targets.

[AnTiw1]

2008 Town Hall Meeting, On the Campaign Trail:

ELDERLY WOMAN: Now, this Obama, I know that he's a terrorist...

JOHN MCCAIN: No, dear, Mister Obama is not a terrorist.

[ReneeLynn]

He needs to be Newtered.

[txrefugee]

When will all the brass, sitting in the Pentagon and counting the days until retirement, remember that they swore to defend this nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic?

Gutting our defenses in this dangerous world is exactly what FDR did, thus inviting WWII. Hundreds of thousands of young Americans lost their lives because they were called on to fight for the country that was unprepared to send them to battle. It had spent its money on bread and circuses instead of war material.

Must we keep repeating this insanity on the part of Democrats who run up enormous deficits and then can only cut the military?

[Pox]

Organize a multi million armed men march into D.C. and perhaps they will get the point.

If not, remove them from D.C. and start from scratch.

[glock rocks]

In related news, Bill Ayers has jumped from a third floor Tampa hotel window to surrender to the Seminoles.

You don’t need a weatherman to see which way the wind’s blowing - The Band

[gaijin]

More and more like Jimmy Carter all the time:

1. stagflation
2. hostage crisis (this one Egyptian and less well-known)
3. deep cuts to military
4. calls for stoicism
5. talk about disarmament

new: bisexual & Muslim

[ElkGroveDan]

we're going to get it back in November.

We're going to get it back in January -- what's left of it after they spend three months trashing whatever they can still get their hands on.

[FrankR]

Nothing new...note the date on this graphic...

[NonValueAdded]

Unilateral disarmament by the Good Cop in a world of increasing nuclear proliferation - what could possibly go wrong? /UltraGigaMegaDrippingSarc

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

[wolf78]

He is deliberately bringing us back to the Stone Age.

Well, realistically speaking 200 nuclear warheads on large cities are enough to end civilization as we know it, by ending the world economy and ushering a nuclear winter lasting for years. Maybe it would be more of an ice age than a stone age, but you get the gist.

There is no nation that would attack another nation with 200 nuclear weapons but not one with 2000 (either you're sane and won't attack either or you're crazy and don't care about your own survival). So when it comes to the security and territorial integrity of the US it doesn't make much of a difference.

The real issue here is a psychological one: Namely would states like China interpret this as a sign of weakness and will it hinder the US in projecting power, influencing decision making processes in other regions and accomplishing foreign policy goals.

[The Sons of Liberty]

Where the Hell are the Joint Chiefs?!

There are a lot of cocktail parties and golf courses in DC. They got to where they are by kissing a$$, and they're not stopping now.

[unixfox]

Our enemies are smiling/laughing right now.

[mlo]

"When will all the brass, sitting in the Pentagon and counting the days until retirement, remember that they swore to defend this nation from all enemies, both foreign and domestic?"

They also swore to defend the Constitution. What exactly do you suggest they do?

[Williams]

This one is scary.

[CCGuy]

Hopefully The Kenyan will be out of Office long before he can get any of this started.