Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

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

140 posts in this topic

Posted

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?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Maybe they will follow suit if we actually start it off. A lot of those countries use the United States as the reason they can't afford to. It's not as if 300 nukes isn't enough...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Any reductions would be slight at best. The Russians see their nuclear arsenal as their last remaining link to being a global power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Any reductions are better than no reductions. A start is a start, and when you can still decimate civilization as we know it with 300 nukes, I don't see the major issue here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I dont see what the problem is with a sharp reduction to our nuclear supply. What country that has a legitimate chance of attacking us is going require a nuclear threat to stop? Even if we went to war with the entire middle east, we wouldnt need nukes to control the situation. 80% may be a lot, but 40-50% would seem like a no-brainer to me. Lets get some other countries in on this, I know Europe needs to save some money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

what is 10billion when ur n debt 16 trillion?

its fckn laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As someone mentioned...10 billion is a joke and nothing more than pandering to hard left especially when considering the fact this goes way beyond the START treaty unilaterally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You know what 10 billion is? A start... and it's better than nothing and could make a dent as part of a plan. If you want cuts, you should be happy with this... even if you think there needs to be more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Any reductions are better than no reductions. A start is a start, and when you can still decimate civilization as we know it with 300 nukes, I don't see the major issue here.

The key is not so much the number of nukes as the survivability of them. You want enough and want them survivable enough so that if someone launches a first strike aimed just at your weapons, enough of them will survive to make the enemy realize that launching the attack in the first place is a huge mistake. If we have fewer of them, we might end up spending more money ensuring that the ones we still have can survive a first strike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The key is not so much the number of nukes as the survivability of them. You want enough and want them survivable enough so that if someone launches a first strike aimed just at your weapons, enough of them will survive to make the enemy realize that launching the attack in the first place is a huge mistake. If we have fewer of them, we might end up spending more money ensuring that the ones we still have can survive a first strike.

That's speculation, though, and it seems unlikely that Obama would just pull this number out of nowhere. If he did, I'm sure it wouldn't be the final "cut" number as he seems to actually listen to the military about some things anyway... even if not everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites