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

#16 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,481 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 05:10 PM

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...

#17 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,432 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 05:20 PM

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

#18 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,481 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 05:24 PM

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.

#19 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 05:53 PM

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.

#20 Claws

Claws

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,100 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:18 PM

what is 10billion when ur n debt 16 trillion?

its fckn laughable.

#21 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,310 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:43 PM

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.

#22 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,481 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:45 PM

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.

#23 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,432 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 09:36 PM

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.

#24 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,481 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 09:39 PM

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.

#25 cantrell

cantrell

    secular progressive bogeyman

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,447 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 12:14 AM

oh so now that we're holding ourselves to the standards of foreign countries, i guess we can be ok with iran possessing a nuclear weapon now?

i mean if cutting to 300 nukes puts us at some sort of disadvantage to the russians and chinese, then one iranian nuke is barely a blip on the radar, right?

#26 rippadonn

rippadonn

    Since 2006

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,851 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 12:41 AM

Other gov programs have been trimmed why not that one? People like me were upset about the F-22 but we all had to get over that.

It won't be the last cut.

Also, Deac, aren't the charges different in a test and a fully powered nuke? Hiroshima is nothing compared to what they got now, we could tilt the axis of the Earth or something if we unloaded

#27 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,432 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 07:31 AM

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.


If you read the article, you will see that the 80% was worst case (or best case depending on how you look at it). Thats why I said imo, its a negotiating figure, and not something the pentagon or the admin actually plans on doing. 10-20% is a more likely figure.

#28 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,432 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 07:42 AM

Other gov programs have been trimmed why not that one? People like me were upset about the F-22 but we all had to get over that.

It won't be the last cut.

Also, Deac, aren't the charges different in a test and a fully powered nuke? Hiroshima is nothing compared to what they got now, we could tilt the axis of the Earth or something if we unloaded


They are not different for a test. The test uses the same charge. But of course, the early atomic weapons were quite a bit weaker than those that were exploded later, so not all of those 2000 or so were high megatonnage, and they were spread out over years and all in the same general areas. Fwiw, major earthquakes and volcanoes have more of an impact on the earth itself than nukes do, even if they all went off at once.

Don't get me wrong, 300 nukes being launched would have a terrible effect on human civilization and it would kill a lot of people, and probably directly result in a billion deaths or so. And it would followed by famine and disease, that would kill even more. It wouldn't end human civilization though.

Cuts are going to happen though. The military is being cut across the board, and strategic systems should and probably will be cut to an extent. But not by 80%.

#29 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Administrators
  • 13,455 posts
  • LocationILM

Posted 17 February 2012 - 07:45 AM

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



I thought they were working into b/c a big oil producer.

#30 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,731 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 10:07 AM

I thought they were working into b/c a big oil producer.


Gas, I think. They have asstons of it.

I'd like to know what the dod thinks about this rather than politicians. Republicans have shown time and time again they're against anything Obama does so their opinion doesn't mean a damn thing to me.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.