Obama proposes getting rid of some nukes, GOP goes ape shit
#1
Posted 16 February 2012 - 02:58 AM
"I just want to go on record as saying that there are many of us that are going to do everything we possibly can to make sure that this preposterous notion does not gain any real traction," said Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.
http://www.huffingto..._n_1279946.html
#2
Posted 16 February 2012 - 04:48 AM
whoever that republican apologist is should clarify a few things:
why are 300 nukes not enough?
why is 1 iranian nuke too many?
#3
Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:02 AM
#4
Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:09 AM
#5
Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:20 AM
And fwiw, there are a lot of democrats that would never go along with an 80% cut, because they know it would be ridiculous, and never get approved.
A 10-15% cut is more realistic, and I would be ok with that even without corresponding cuts in our potential opponents arsenal.
Panetta says 80% is only one option
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the committee that no decision has been made and maintaining the current level is one of the options.
Edited by Davidson Deac II, 16 February 2012 - 07:35 AM.
#6
Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:34 AM
Oh wait, they only want to cut spending on the things they don't see as productive like healthcare. Weapons of mass destruction? Hell yeah, kill those dark people!
#7
Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:35 AM
As long as the Russians, Chinese etc... are making similar cuts, then I am ok with it.
.
...which ain't happenin'. In fact, Russia is starting to rebuild itself.
#8
Posted 16 February 2012 - 08:03 AM
#9
Posted 16 February 2012 - 08:34 AM
Unbelievable the gall and acceptance of all around that this will simply happen. It's like he's built a grand clone army....or disbanded one.
#10
Posted 16 February 2012 - 08:41 AM
#11
Posted 16 February 2012 - 11:30 AM
Seems like it would be expensive to maintain just one nuke. Getting rid of 100 that are not needed in the slightest would save a ton of money. Seems like republicans should be all for cutting spending on things we don't need.
Oh wait, they only want to cut spending on the things they don't see as productive like healthcare. Weapons of mass destruction? Hell yeah, kill those dark people!
The hypocrites come out of the woodwork with anything released from the White House.
If we launched 300 nukes we would ALL suffer, many more people would die, friend and foe, not just the country these ya-hoo's want to send back to the stone age. The world is much more connected than these idiots even realize.
A mass launch would doom the planet.
#12
Posted 16 February 2012 - 04:04 PM
If Obama really wants to help the yous and mes of the US, he'd outlaw those damn state auto inspections!
That's a state issue (I'll be called looney like Ron Paul is for stating this). There have been proposals to end NC car inspections. Corruption causes them to continue. Fact is people make money from inspections.
http://www.westernca...ctions-1.305279
http://hamptonroads....car-inspections
North Carolina is one of nearly 20 states that have either safety inspections or safety and emissions inspections. South Carolina is one of 15 states with no inspections.
As for nukes, sell them to Israel and Russia.
#13
Posted 16 February 2012 - 04:08 PM
Ironically, the threat of violence is the biggest deterant of violence. Would you rather hit a nest of hornets or a bag of flowers? Global thermonuclear war would absolutely destroy the planet. But sitting on 1500 nukes might make someone reconsider before they push that little red button.
"Would you like to play a game?"
#14
Posted 16 February 2012 - 04:16 PM
I think there are better ways to reduce 10 billion dollars off our government spending and keep our nuclear arsenal. There's tons of wasteful government spending and if someone actually put in the effort they could find a way to shave off way more than 10 billion.
That's the problem though, everyone thinks "oh, my program doesn't really use that much money, we can eliminate somewhere else"
Start eliminating a lot of "small" amounts and you end up with a big amount.
No reductions will make much of a difference though unless there are significant changes to medical care and social security.
People like to make a big deal out of things like this, green energy, mass transit, border patrol, prison spending, etc but they're all pennies compared to social security, medicare, and medicaid.
#15
Posted 16 February 2012 - 05:03 PM
The hypocrites come out of the woodwork with anything released from the White House.
If we launched 300 nukes we would ALL suffer, many more people would die, friend and foe, not just the country these ya-hoo's want to send back to the stone age. The world is much more connected than these idiots even realize.
A mass launch would doom the planet.
Its not quite that simple. There have been over 2000 test detonations of nuclear weapons since 1945, and not that many people have been hurt. In truth, we could launch 300 nukes at some remote spot, and very few of us would suffer any direct effects. Its launching 300 nuclear weapons at Russia that would doom the United States. Well their response to that launch would doom us anyway. But if that happens, the human race would survive. Civilization would suffer quite a bit, but pockets of civilazation would survive, and eventually perhaps even thrive.
But like I said earlier, I am not against cuts in the arsenal. But if we are going to cut 80%, some other nations such as Russia should follow suit, or we shouldn't do it.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users





