Staggering: Obama to Cut Nukes by 80%

Rushlimbaugh.com ^ | February 15, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

[NYer]

RUSH: There are some things happening today that are downright scary. The regime, led by Barack Hussein Obama, is weighing options for reducing our US nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80% in the number of deployed warheads -- 80%. Folks, this is staggering. Meanwhile, the Iranians are nuking up. Iran announced today that they're gonna cut off oil to six countries that have opposed its nuclear program, and more importantly, Iran also announced that they have installed domestically made nuclear fuel rods in their Tehran reactor.

Now, if that's true, this is significant because the sanctions that are currently imposed on them are supposed to prevent them from getting the material that you need to make nuclear rods. And, also, if this is true, it puts Iran that much closer to being able to make a nuclear weapon. We're unilaterally disarming. We are not requiring the Russians to go along and, even if the Russians said they would match these reductions, they lie. That is the lesson of the Russians and nukes. What was our top moment? Our number of warheads peaked at 12,000 in the late eighties. And let me tell you something. That number of nuclear warheads is what helped us win the Cold War. That number of nuclear warheads sent a message to every other nation, particularly at that point in time, the Soviet Union, "You hit us, it doesn't matter. We've got enough left to wipe you out in retaliation." That many nuclear warheads was a deterrent.

So much is flashing back to me. You go back to the eighties and the seventies, the nuclear freeze movement, the peaceniks wanted to get rid of nukes, and there was an arms race going on. We were increasing our stockpile, as were the Russians. The numbers mattered only in terms of deterrent. We had to keep up, and we had to stay ahead. You build, for example, the B-2 bomber, hoping never to have to use it. The left has never understood this about military matters and defense. They never understood this about nukes. You build them so that you don't have to use them. That's the point. You don't build them because you want to. You don't build them because you can't wait to use them. You don't build them because you're warmongers. You build them so that you don't have to. It's what's behind practically every major weapon invention and manufacture.

The B-2 stealth bomber, you hope you never have to use it. Now, we have had to, obviously. But the hope is that the brute force and the ability to project power is enough to deter anybody from taking us on. It's a great strategy, it is how this stuff works, and now Barack Obama is reducing our stockpile unilaterally by 80%, back to 300 warheads. Now, you might say, "Well, that's good, Rush, it's making the world safer." It is not making the world safer. If the Russians still have 15,000 or 2,000, whatever the number is, folks, there's a balance of power here that has shifted away from us, and this -- I am here to tell you -- is by design.

The Associated Press is reporting that Obama could cut our nuclear weapons arsenal by 80%. That is just staggering. This would amount to unilateral disarmament. Three hundred nuclear weapons would take us back to levels not seen since 1950. If we cut our nuclear weapons down to 300, Russia will have five times, 1,550 nuclear warheads. If we reduce to 300, we will have fewer nuclear warheads than the ChiComs. The only thing you could say in response to this, "Well, Rush, we don't have anything to fear from the Russians or the Chinese or anybody in the Middle East." No, of course we don't. The last time we had 300 warheads was in the fifties and that's when we were making them as fast as our technology and materials would permit us to make 'em. We weren't stopping at 300. We kept going.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now reducing nuclear weapons to 300 warheads.

We dug up, ladies and gentlemen... Let me see where it is here. Yes, here it is: Obama's 1983 nuclear freeze article. The New York Times had a story on July 4th, 2009. "Obama's Youth Shaped His Nuclear-Free Vision." When you read this, it becomes painfully clear that Obama's thinking has not advanced one inch in the last 29 years. He is now implementing the pacifist, anti-nuke ideas that the anti-nuke, "pro-peace" movement had way back in the 1980s, back during the days of Ronaldus Magnus. "Obama's Youth Shaped His Nuclear-Free Vision -- In the depths of the Cold War, in 1983, a senior at Columbia University wrote in a campus newsmagazine, Sundial, about the vision of 'a nuclear free world.' He railed against discussions of 'first- versus second-strike capabilities' that 'suit the military-industrial interests' with their 'billion-dollar erector sets,' and agitated for the elimination of global arsenals holding tens of thousands of deadly warheads."

Don't tell me, "We've got a nice guy," Mr. Romney, "who's in over his head."

Don't tell me, Mr. Romney, as Mr. Romney's been saying, "He's a good man. He's just out of his league."

By far and away he's not out of his league. The people "out of their league" are in the Republican Party trying to deal with this, getting skunked at every turn.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
I need to correct myself on this nuclear warhead business. I erroneously stated at the beginning of the show that we peaked at 12,000 nuclear warheads. That was way wrong. In 1967, we peaked at 31,255 nuclear warheads. In 1989, we were down to 22,217 warheads. In 2010, we were at 5,113 nuclear warheads. And by 2017 we are scheduled to be at 1,500 warheads -- 1,550. It is that number Obama is suggesting be reduced to 300 warheads -- and before 2017. I had said we peaked at 12,000 warheads in the eighties, and I stand corrected. We had 31,000 warheads in 1967.

[ought-six]

I am fully aware of who Leon Panetta is, and I also know he pushed back against some of the administration’s positions when he was Director CIA, though in vain. Recall that I said there was a 2% chance he would put his country ahead of his party. That means he is 98% Dem and 2% patriot, unlike, say, Pelosi and Reid, who are both 100% Dem and 0% patriot.

If Panetta is “cheering on” the unilateral disarmament of the United States then his 98% Dem has trumped his 2% patriot.

Perhaps YOU should do “a little research” on Panetta.

[chessplayer]

Could our arsenal destroy Russia assuming;

1)The Russians/Chinese haven’t developed the technology to track/stalk our missile subs undetected and sink them before they can fire.

2) Assuming that with our subs lost, we have enough land based nukes to survive a 1st strike.

3) That if some of our land based nukes survive 1st strike, there are enough of them to severely damage Russia. WWII proved the Russian govt. and population are willing to absorb unthinkable casualties.

4) That our nukes would even work. As far as I know, our arsenal hasn’t been upgraded since whenever. They might not detonate and would just hit the target with a thud.

5) That obama would even order a retaliation. Considering how much he loathes this country, he may welcome a nuke attack against us as payback to whitey.

6) If he was willing to retaliate, would he survive long enough to order it? A Russian sub off the east coast could vaporize DC 5 minutes after launch if not sooner.

7) The Russians don’t have a suitcase nuke in DC that would obliterate the govt. and Pentagon before they launched a strike against the rest of the US.

[U-238]

You can track a submarine from space.

[SVTCobra03]

Wrong Paul is an anti-Semitic nutbar and surrender monkey who believes we have no enemies. He would get us all killed.

[chessplayer]

Like dumbo, Paul believes the world would be a paradise if the US didn’t exist. His 1st act as prez would be to go on a worldwide apology tour.

[tomkat]

fellow patriot, methinks

[tomkat]

grrrrr

[House Atreides]

This is a very naive belief and is far from the truth.

[combat_boots]

0bama has specifically said we can withstand a terrorist attack.

Bear in mind that he and his gang have now endorsed START II, which means a 70% reduction at large. Now, to chop the remains to bits.

What IS he asking for? Are there doubts?

[ctdonath2]

Perhaps the military will have enough and see to it he be removed from office before more damage be done.

[mcshot]

I stand corrected. Its been approximately 45 years since I took the oath and my failing memory needed some help. Unfortunately the result is the same - we sink.

[chessplayer]

You can track a submarine from space.

---

What if they have discovered a stealth technology for subs that makes it impossible to detect them. Our ‘boomers’ would be sitting ducks.

[U-238]

Most submarines are built with an emphasis on stealth.Advanced propeller designs, extensive sound-reducing insulation, and special machinery allow the submarine to be undetected but they have to eliminate the “submarine wake” and the sonar buoyos.In 1984, the U.S. Navy oceanographer aboard the “Challenger” space shuttle into space and successfully to detect other submarines of the ripple. Currently, the U.S. Navy anti-submarine satellite is in space and submarine sonar array, sea anti-submarine ships, air anti-submarine aircraft, together constitute the three-dimensional anti-submarine network.DARPA is working on anti submarine detection warfare.

[U-238]

Most submarines are built with an emphasis on stealth.Advanced propeller designs, extensive sound-reducing insulation, and special machinery allow the submarine to be undetected but they have to eliminate the “submarine wake” and the sonar buoyos.In 1984, the U.S. Navy oceanographer aboard the “Challenger” space shuttle into space and successfully to detect other submarines of the ripple. Currently, the U.S. Navy anti-submarine satellite is in space and submarine sonar array, sea anti-submarine ships, air anti-submarine aircraft, together constitute the three-dimensional anti-submarine network.DARPA is working on anti submarine detection warfare.

[U-238]

In May 14,2011 , “Atlantis,” conducted last space shuttle flight, the crew, including Captain U.S. Navy submarine force, U.S. forces may take the opportunity to further test the potential of satellite hunting technology.

[chessplayer]

It’s the suitcase nuke that makes the ultimate nightmare scenario. The Russians wouldn’t have to launch missiles from land or sub. Vaporize Congress, the White House (and the ‘football’), and the Pentagon with a suitcase, and they could launch the rest of their stuff at their leisure without fear of retaliation. Without the codes, the subs couldn’t launch their stuff.

[U-238]

There are three such “footballs” in existence. The first travels with the President, a spare is kept at the White House, and the third is with the Vice President. Anyways, the missiles would still be launched by the commander of National Military Command Center and multiple airborne command posts .

[U-238]

National Military Command Center is responsible for the emergency action messages that are relayed to the submarines to launch their missiles.

[chessplayer]

There are three such “footballs” in existence. The first travels with the President, a spare is kept at the White House, and the third is with the Vice President. Anyways, the missiles would still be launched by the commander of National Military Command Center and multiple airborne command posts .

---

Without civilian authorization? With a suitcase, the NMCC would be taken out. What I’m guessing is that they would choose a time when all civilian authority is in town.

[Seattle Conservative]

Here’s the link to the 2009 article mentioned in Rush’s discussion:

Obama’s Youth Shaped His Nuclear-Free Vision
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/world/05nuclear.html?pagewanted=all