Do you care about georgia ?

[Tug McGroin]

Thats right. I don't think the U.S. and its little puppets want to see the bad side of Rodina (Mother Russia).
OORAH POBIEDA!

Not to worry my friend, Obama plans to disarm America’s nuclear weapons program first then he will sweet talk Russia into giving up theirs. See, no problem.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcqhoiK8-Ww

Russia has always been very truthful and honest and will be very happy to cooperate with the United States in stopping their development of nuclear weapons.

Sleep well my friend.

\sarcasm off

 

[delldude]

What's Bush going to do now that he got Ivan riled up?
Big Russian flotilla led by Admiral Kuznetsov carrier heads for Syrian port

 

[Bobbie]

It's disrespectful to suggest that a nation "can't handle" having nuclear weapons, but we can. What gives us the right to be the only kid on the block sporting nuclear weapons in their arsenal? Could it be that the UNITED STATES possessing nuclear weapons and randomly invading nations regularly makes these nations FEAR that we're going to do it to them, too?

We're really beating this Cold War-era JOKE of a defense strategy to death.

 

[delldude]

It's disrespectful to suggest that a nation "can't handle" having nuclear weapons, but we can. What gives us the right to be the only kid on the block sporting nuclear weapons in their arsenal? Could it be that the UNITED STATES possessing nuclear weapons and randomly invading nations regularly makes these nations FEAR that we're going to do it to them, too?

We're really beating this Cold War-era JOKE of a defense strategy to death.

What you say is is correct but I don't like the notion of Obama setting an example by eliminating our stockpile....in this day and age...you wake up and 'POOF' you're gone.

 

[Cosworth]

What you say is is correct but I don't like the notion of Obama setting an example by eliminating our stockpile....in this day and age...you wake up and 'POOF' you're gone.

Last I checked we had enough nukes to destroy the world several times over. I'm not talking about making it a bit cold to live, I'm talking smocking charcoal briquette dead as a door knob dead. So how many nukes do we need? The subs alone could take out ever major city and then some. How many is enough?

Us getting rid of some nukes is like Bill Gates donating a million dollars. The man is worth several billion so it's unlikely he would miss a million or even two.

 

[El Che]

Last I checked we had enough nukes to destroy the world several times over. I'm not talking about making it a bit cold to live, I'm talking smocking charcoal briquette dead as a door knob dead. So how many nukes do we need? The subs alone could take out ever major city and then some. How many is enough?

Us getting rid of some nukes is like Bill Gates donating a million dollars. The man is worth several billion so it's unlikely he would miss a million or even two.

Just like McCain, if you look closely at Obama you will see the puppet strings. Obama and his wife are CFR as is John McCain (as are many members of congress, academia and big business). It is the CFR who sets U.S. policy and who has given us these two so called choices.
Obama wants to bring us into world government through a more traditional UN/EU "socialistic" route. McCain wants to bring us into world government through a fascist U.S. controlled corporate empire. Either way the people loose and the fat cat capitalists win.
Speaking of McCain:None Dare Call it Treason... :down:

 

[delldude]

Last I checked we had enough nukes to destroy the world several times over. I'm not talking about making it a bit cold to live, I'm talking smocking charcoal briquette dead as a door knob dead. So how many nukes do we need? The subs alone could take out ever major city and then some. How many is enough?

Us getting rid of some nukes is like Bill Gates donating a million dollars. The man is worth several billion so it's unlikely he would miss a million or even two.

Say for instance....Big 'O' gets a new home on Pennsylvania Avenue....Big 'O' in a touchy feely mood,decides we are turning our nukes in for cash....could it/would it really happen?

Would the people in charge of our government in all those little seedy places inferred in many movies really let someone leave us totally naked?

 

[jimntx]

First off, let's not forget that the USA is the only nuclear power who has ever actually used a nuclear weapon. And, no I am not questioning its use...it ended WWII a lot faster.

However, today's weapons are many times over more powerful than the first two A-bombs. No one in their right mind would use one. I do not believe that having nuclear weapons is a deterrent against another country using them on us. Any country that would be insane enough to use a nuclear weapon on the US (or any other major power for that matter) would NOT be thinking of the possible consequences of such an action.

Deterrence strategies only works if the other party really knows and understands the quid pro quo. And, we must not forget that to the Muslim terrorists to die for the cause is a guarantee of glory. They do not view death as a negative consequence.

By the way, the Big 'O" as you call him could not turn our weapons in for cash. WE are the only government trying to pry weapons out of the hands of other nations by offering to buy them. Who would buy them? The TSA? (Now, there's a frightening thought for you. )

 

[freedom]

It’s a fact that we have more nukes than we need , If I recall from years ago we have enough to blow up the world something like 16 times … that’s overkill , we only need enough nukes to do it to the world once …

As for deterrence , we of course will continue to need them … deterrence works

 

[KCFlyer]

It’s a fact that we have more nukes than we need , If I recall from years ago we have enough to blow up the world something like 16 times … that’s overkill , we only need enough nukes to do it to the world once …

As for deterrence , we of course will continue to need them … deterrence works

Yeah, but in the past, we've had leaders who never pondered the use of nukes in an offensive attack. Cheney has. I only hope he doesn't go thru with it prior to January 2009.

 

[jimntx]

As for deterrence , we of course will continue to need them … deterrence works

On what basis do you make that statement? The fact that we have not been attacked with nuclear weapons by another country?

The fact that we have not been attacked only proves that we have not been attacked. You can not prove a negative. One could just as easily say that we have not been attacked because we sell gigantic, gas-guzzling vehicles in this country as to say that we have not been attacked because we have nuclear weapons. The first half of each statement is true as is the second half of each statement. It's the word because that is the problem.

You may surmise that possession of nuclear weapons is a deterrent, but it does not prove anything.

 

[freedom]

On what basis do you make that statement? The fact that we have not been attacked with nuclear weapons by another country?

The fact that we have not been attacked only proves that we have not been attacked. You can not prove a negative. One could just as easily say that we have not been attacked because we sell gigantic, gas-guzzling vehicles in this country as to say that we have not been attacked because we have nuclear weapons. The first half of each statement is true as is the second half of each statement. It's the word because that is the problem.

You may surmise that possession of nuclear weapons is a deterrent, but it does not prove anything.

I think you need to look at human nature to understand deterrence …

If both sides know that one side using nuclear weapons would cause massive retaliation resulting in total annihilation then neither side will employe those weapons .. Do you think we would have nuked japan if they had had ICBM’s with nuclear weapons on them ? I think not …

Why do you think we had a huge arms race during the cold war ? And a RED LINE to the Kremlin ?

If you want to understand deterrence you need look no further than the 1964 movie fail safe .


Deterrence is a fact , it HAS worked , and continues to work , while it may not work against small terrorist groups , it does against other nations .

 

[jimntx]

There's no point in discussing this further, but no. You have not proved that deterrence works. You are assuming that is the reason. Assumption is not proof.

And, you admit that deterrence will not work on the current groups about which we are all worried. I'm not worried about any of the major powers that have nuclear weapons. Even with their current actions in Georgia, no one in charge in Russia is that stupid or bound by ideology. China would certainly not attempt to destroy their largest single market. They also are not stupid.

Your deterrence has no effect whatsoever on Osama bin Laden, et al. He and his ilk are the ones we should be worried about. They only have to get their hands on one bomb to create chaos. Look what they did with only 4 airplanes.

 

[freedom]

I'm not worried about any of the major powers that have nuclear weapons. Even with their current actions in Georgia, no one in charge in Russia is that stupid or bound by ideology. China would certainly not attempt to destroy their largest single market. They also are not stupid.

Ah but I just DID prove that deterrence works as you agreed with me …. Hence it works ….

I’m not one of those people who are going to sit for hours and debate reason and the meaning of life etc… common sense proves deterrence works , hence I have proved my point …

 

[delldude]

Yeah, but in the past, we've had leaders who never pondered the use of nukes in an offensive attack. Cheney has. I only hope he doesn't go thru with it prior to January 2009.

Bet me.....

Recently declassified documents reveal that during Richard M. Nixon's first year as president, advisers on his White House staff were willing to revisit the question of whether to employ nuclear weapons in Vietnam. Senior officials and policy advisers in the administrations of Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson had previously considered the possibility of using nuclear weapons to deal with military crises, influence negotiations, or terminate conflicts, but their deliberations had come to naught because of a deeply ingrained "nuclear taboo." The same considerations shaped the Nixon White House's thinking on nuclear weapons regarding Vietnam and, it seems, the Bush White House's thinking about the "nuclear option" vis-à-vis Iran.

More