Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Obama proposes getting rid of some nukes, GOP goes ape shit


  • Please log in to reply
138 replies to this topic

#1 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,263 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 02:58 AM

He wants to save $10 billion by reducing our nuclear arsenal from 1500 to 300. Is 300 nukes seriously not enough? The ability to destroy just about every human on the planet isn't enough security apparently.

"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 cantrell

cantrell

    secular progressive bogeyman

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,447 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 04:48 AM

lol @ the tags

whoever that republican apologist is should clarify a few things:

why are 300 nukes not enough?

why is 1 iranian nuke too many?

#3 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,770 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:02 AM

It's not about is it enough or too many....it's unnecessary unilateral disarmament. If there's one thing that's prevented anyone from pulling off an organized national ww2-esque fight, it's knowing that we'd send them back a few civilizations.

#4 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,263 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:09 AM

lol yeah I can just picture all those countries out there whispering "They only have 300 nukes, our time is now!"

#5 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,504 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:20 AM

As long as the Russians, Chinese etc... are making similar cuts, then I am ok with it.

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 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,086 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:34 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!

#7 SamTheRam

SamTheRam

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 353 posts

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 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,504 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 08:03 AM

The more I think about this, the more I believe this is merely a negotiating tactic by the administration. They throw out some outlandish number like 80% cuts in the overall arsenal, knowing there is no way it will pass the congress (even if the democrats were in control). That way, when the real figures come out (say 15-20%), they might be able to get some republicans onboard with it, enough to pass anyway.

#9 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,770 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 08:34 AM

Obama certainly has listened to Charles Karass, but the problem is the moron should be doing this with our strategic "enemies"...not our own.

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 Disinfranchised

Disinfranchised

    Disinfranchised

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts
  • LocationStokeridge

Posted 16 February 2012 - 08:41 AM

If Obama really wants to help the yous and mes of the US, he'd outlaw those damn state auto inspections!

#11 rippadonn

rippadonn

    Since 2006

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,942 posts

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 Panthers128

Panthers128

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,283 posts

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 Sheldon Wolowizard

Sheldon Wolowizard

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 04:08 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.

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 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,540 posts

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 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,504 posts

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

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com