Ok. Why get rid of the nukes?

[fish_surf]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100413/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_nuclear_conference

Actually, it is the cut down on production of nuke material that Obama is convincing the UN nations. I tend to ask why, specifically when Obama is stating that the US has more danger of being attacked by nukes from terrorist. Then, I realized the statement below:

The material could be sent to the U.S. or Russia, but Gibbs declined to specify the amount, other than to say it was enough to make several nuclear weapons.

 

[Right Wing]

I honestly believe that everything Obama does is for one reason and one reason only:

To put a feather in his cap.

Based on his actions it's more than clear that he could not care less about the American people or the country. Look at the healthcare disaster and his "pass it at all costs" method of getting it through against the will of the people.
All of his actions with regard to nuclear weapons achieves absolutely nothing to bolster national security. In fact it's a threat to national security since rogue nations can not be trusted to abide by any of these provisions.

 

[phreakwars]

I honestly believe that everything Obama does is for one reason and one reason only:

To put a feather in his cap.

Based on his actions it's more than clear that he could not care less about the American people or the country. Look at the healthcare disaster and his "pass it at all costs" method of getting it through against the will of the people.
All of his actions with regard to nuclear weapons achieves absolutely nothing to bolster national security. In fact it's a threat to national security since rogue nations can not be trusted to abide by any of these provisions.

How do you call something a disaster when you haven't seen the results? Will of what people? The guys who voted them in, or the Right wing Rassmusen polls? And how do you know it won't bolster national security? What makes you the foremost expert from the comfort of your computer chair, of what our National security policy should be?
.
.

 

[truthBtold]

 

[Hazer]

do we need enough nucks to destroy the whole world?

 

[phreakwars]

do we need enough nucks to destroy the whole world?

No, just enough to destroy the parts we don't need.
.
.

 

[Right Wing]

do we need enough nucks to destroy the whole world?

In this day and age I enjoy the fact that other countries know that we do.

 

[Right Wing]

No, just enough to destroy the parts we don't need.
.
.

Like Mexico for example

 

[Right Wing]

How do you call something a disaster when you haven't seen the results? Will of what people? The guys who voted them in, or the Right wing Rassmusen polls? And how do you know it won't bolster national security? What makes you the foremost expert from the comfort of your computer chair, of what our National security policy should be?
.
.

I hope someday I will be proven wrong but I sincerely doubt it.

 

[Giga311]

even with whatever they agreed to, there is probably enough nukes in the US alone to destroy the world a few times over

 

[phreakwars]

I hope someday I will be proven wrong but I sincerely doubt it.

Now you know why you and your kind, are called Chicken Little.

"OH MY GOD EVERYTHING IS GONNA END UP SO TERRIBLE, OH MY GOD THE SKY IS FALLING, JUST YOU WATCH, OH MY GOD MY VAGINA IS BLEEDING HARD".

Grow some balls man. For better or worse, life fukking goes on.
.
.

 

[HERO]

honestly believe that everything Obama does is for one reason and one reason only:

To put a feather in his cap.

I agree !

 

[HERO]

do we need enough nucks to destroy the whole world?

No ! But each country will keep enough to damage there enemy's , That said there is a lot of land mass to cover .

 

[HERO]

No, just enough to destroy the parts we don't need.
.
.

Curtis Lamay had a similar response .

 

[( ^_^ )]

Good thing other countries have nukes to keep the chicken hawk NeoConfederates on check

 

[HERO]

even with whatever they agreed to, there is probably enough nukes in the US alone to destroy the world a few times over

I don't think the whole world would be . there are some places a nuke will never see,because its not a high value target .

 

[HERO]

Good thing other countries have nukes to keep the chicken hawk NeoConfederates on check

In a word yes that is right .

 

[Giga311]

I don't think the whole world would be . there are some places a nuke will never see,because its not a high value target .

just because a country isn't target by a nuke directly doesn't mean it won't be affected by the fallout

 

[HERO]

just because a country isn't target by a nuke directly doesn't mean it won't be affected by the fallout

I know that,

 

[steve doocy]

In this day and age I enjoy the fact that other countries know that we do.

Lol. Hopefully you never served in the military because you really would be a poor representative of such. The truth is this


"Nuclear weapons are for Russian people now much more important than decades ago," Arbatov said. "They are more important than during the Cold War times as a pillar of national security."

Moscow just published its own defense doctrine, and it reserves the use of tactical or strategic nuclear weapons if the very existence of Russia is threatened. This reveals one of the great paradoxes of nuclear weapons, Perkovich says.

"In a world where you take away everybody else's nuclear weapons and also the U.S. nuclear weapons, the U.S. would have this great advantage in conventional military capability," he said.

Russian leaders look at the U.S. advantage in advanced military technology, and they see nuclear weapons as the great equalizer.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125604693&ft=1&f=1001"


Without nukes no one can touch us. Everyone who served and pays attention even the slightest knows this.

But hey that's just my opinion.