Skip to comments.US edging toward decision on new nuclear arms cuts
Posted on 07/02/2012 5:01:33 PM PDT by moonshot925
WASHINGTON The Obama administration is edging toward decisions that would further shrink the U.S. nuclear arsenal, possibly to between 1,000 and 1,100 warheads, reflecting new thinking on the role of nuclear weapons in an age of terror, say current and former officials.
The reductions that are under consideration align with President Barack Obama's vision of trimming the nation's nuclear arsenal without harming national security in the short term, and in the longer term, eliminating nuclear weapons.
The White House has yet to announce any plan for reducing the number of nuclear weapons, beyond commitments made in the recently completed New Start treaty with Russia, which obliges both countries to reduce their number of deployed long-range nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550 by 2018. As of March 1, Russia had already dropped its total to 1,492 and the U.S. stood at 1,737.
Obama has been considering a range of options for additional cuts, including a low-end range that would leave between 300 and 400 warheads. Several current and former officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said there appeared to be a consensus building around the more modest reduction to 1,000 to 1,100 deployed strategic warheads.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
It is not necessary and not smart to reduce our strategic forces any more than what we are obligated to by treaty.
Obama did say the war on terror was over
Hussein’s motto: “Anything to hurt America.”
I expect 0bama to unilaterally disarm - that should be grounds for immediate removal!!!!
This is DANGEROUS.
He has termed nukes “The President’s weapons.” (Google it.) This was three years ago. You won’t find many references to it, but it should still be findable. I think what he meant by it was NOT the obvious (power hungry madman), but a re-assertion of his authority over the advice he was probably receiving from the generals, who likely advised against such deep cuts.
Obama has stated that he wants to bring the level down to the “high hundreds.”
This is tantamount to TREASON. Why? Because we lose our deterrence at that level. It becomes possible for Russia + China to take out our aresenal in a counterforce first strike.
We need to rethink what we think we know: Nuclear war *IS WINNABLE* if you dedicate yourself to it.
If Russia + China took out 3/4 of our arsenal at the “high hundreds” level—leaving only, say, 250 missiles to strike back, we couldn’t adequately cover the two nations with a return volley (a “countervalue” strike).
Then, the final volley from what’s left of Russia + China, and North America is FINISHED.
Within the year, the invasion happens.
Sure, we’d still have many thousands of warheads—all stockpiled. It takes teams of engineers quite some time to marry each warhead back to another missile. It can’t be done that quickly.
We’re a powerful nation, poorly led by wishful fools and dreamers. Men who are weak and though they consider themselves to be intellectuals, they’re really not that bright.
Absolutely insane as China rapidly arms itself.
The only warheads that count are the ones that actually arrive at their
intended destinations in working order.
The only warheads I’d expect this administration to guarantee
delivery for are the ones coming from America’s nuclear adversaries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.