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.

[Cementjungle]

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

It's really a no-brainer. We can cut our ongoing maintenence expenses AND at the same time make some quick bucks by selling our nukes to the friendly emerging Muslim Brotherhood nations.

[CCGuy]

LOL.

Yeah. The locations Mecca, Medina, Tehran, Qom, Damascus, and Islamabad come immediately to mind.

[mlo]

"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."

He can weigh all the options he wants. Defense budgets have to be passed by Congress. And next year he'll be out of office anyway.

[sergeantdave]

“Where the Hell are the Joint Chiefs?!”

Good question, rarestia.

My theory is that these traitorous clowns actually believe they’re wearing magic ju-ju beads and are immune to bullets. They missed the pictures of Libya’s army of staff getting dragged into the courtyard and getting his brains blown out. They also didn’t pay attention to the militia man in Libya who pulled Kaddhafi’s gold-plated pistol from his holster, slammed him into the SUV hood and blew his brains out.

We are dealing with military moron traitors who believe they won’t be photographed swinging from lampposts.

[rbg81]

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.

---

Its also how you have them deployed. If an enemy thinks he can take most of them out in a first strike, it might be tempting.

[U-238]

I disagree with all US nuclear cuts especially with nations like China,North Korea and Iran building their forces.

[U-238]

This is the Russian view of a nuclear first strike:

“Only the offensive leads to the attainment of victory over the enemy. As a type of combat, the offensive has incontestable advantages over the defense. The attacker has broad capabilities for launching surprise strikes, for the rapid exploitation of the results of nuclear attacks”
Russian military strategist Col. Sidorenko

[Jonah Johansen]

The Holy Grail, the absolute number one priority of the Communist Party USA has been unilateral nuclear disarmament of the USA.
A sure sign you are dealing with a Communist(I do mean Communist not liberal or left wing)front organization is their support for unilateral disarmament.
They made there big push during Reagen’s first term, it has since been shown that the nuclear freeze movement in Europe and the US along with the nuclear apocalyptic propaganda was financed and orchestrated by Moscow.

There are many scenarios for America’s gradual decline but a depleted US strategic nuclear force with unverified unchecked,inadequately inspected reductions of Soviet weapons and a president with a documented history of Communist influence and sympathies is a formula for America’s instantaneous extermination.

Even as we speak I wonder if the underwater location of our trident submarines is secure with Obama in the White House or if the Soviets have been assured that he would not retaliate but surrender if they attacked. If you are already a Red than there is not even a better dead than red choice to be made.

No one with his background would ever be given a security clearance or allowed any where near any of our strategic weapons. Can you imagine any one with all his close Communist connections being allowed to fly a B-52 or even allowed on a trident submarine.

You can think about the various ways a second Obama term could severely damage America; we are here not talking of damage or the metaphorical death of America, we are here talking about the actual death of virtually every man, woman and child in America.

[FreedomPoster]

We better.

[FreedomPoster]

>>What exactly do you suggest they do?

Resign and go public on what a brain damaged move this is.

[FreedomPoster]

Ping

[FlingWingFlyer]

Barry the Kenyan Guy is going to get all of us killed. I think that’s the plan.

[okie01]

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

Why, we're just setting a good example for the rest of the world to follow. Nuclear weapons are bad for chil'ren. And for Mother Earth./UltraGigaMegaDrippingLiberalCrap

[familyop]

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

So Gingrich will be the nominee after all?

[U-238]

200 bombs is around how much we have in European bases. A realistic exchange is a 5000 megaton exchage between the Russians and United States. Counting primary and secondary targets in United States there are about 6,000 primary targets. These targets include: ICBM silos and launch centers, air force, navy and army facilities, key military support industries, command and control centers, and political infrastructures.

[U-238]

You will also have to include as possible nuclear targets priority on industrial targets which support the military effort including key military support industries, port facilities, fuel refineries, fuel storage facilities, power generating plants, chemical plants and communication facilities.

[Apollo5600]

“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 Russians and Chinese would. They have entire strategies written down discussing it.

[wolf78]

Its also how you have them deployed. If an enemy thinks he can take most of them out in a first strike, it might be tempting.

Correct. A solid nuclear triad, better delivery capabilities combined with superior conventional weapons and ideally some form of missile defense are vastly preferable to just having more nukes.

Military strength is more than just the size of an arsenal, it's also about political clout, getting other states to isolate your enemy, it's about economical prowess, the ability to sustain a war effort, about technological superiority, the ability to use techonolgy to your advantage, about perception.

The difference between 800 and 1800 nukes alone is meaningless. It's only as part of the bigger equation that it is relevant. Example: the arms race of the 1980s helped the US while hurting Russia. Doing the same thing doesn't lead to the same result. It always depends on the circumstances.

Does that mean I think the US should only have 300 or 800 or whatever number of nukes? Should it have more? Are the circumstances the same as 20 years ago? Is there a new paradigm? I frankly lack the (classified) knowledge to have an definite answer to that. But I thinkt that ONLY discussing the number of nukes is pointless. I'd like to know all the other parameters as well.

As they say: You have to look at the WHOLE chessboard.

[U-238]

We have plans on them.Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy (NUWEP) that specified basic planning assumptions, attack options, targeting objectives, types of targets, targeting constraints, and coordination with combatant commanders

[Apollo5600]

We won’t have plans on them after this.