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.