Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

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


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
138 replies to this topic

#25 cantrell

cantrell

    secular progressive bogeyman

  • Joined: 16-May 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,447
  • Reputation: 3
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 27-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,021
  • Reputation: 200
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,127
  • Reputation: 1,527
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,127
  • Reputation: 1,527
HUDDLER

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.

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 13,854
  • Reputation: 4,612
Administrators

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,801
  • Reputation: 548
HUDDLER

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.

#31 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,027
  • Reputation: 442
HUDDLER

Posted 17 February 2012 - 10:14 AM

did someone say $10 billion is a joke?

#32 Mvp2014

Mvp2014

    Phenom

  • Joined: 06-October 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,997
  • Reputation: 383
HUDDLER

Posted 17 February 2012 - 10:23 AM

Let's make sure we keep the good ones, you know, the ones Russia and China don't have.

#33 Mvp2014

Mvp2014

    Phenom

  • Joined: 06-October 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,997
  • Reputation: 383
HUDDLER

Posted 17 February 2012 - 10:24 AM

did someone say $10 billion is a joke?


It's not much considering our debt rises at $75 million an hour. This is just smart campaigning by Obama. Will not pass

#34 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,027
  • Reputation: 442
HUDDLER

Posted 17 February 2012 - 10:37 AM

so at what price-point are cuts worth investigating?


/definitely campaigning, definitely won't pass.

#35 Mvp2014

Mvp2014

    Phenom

  • Joined: 06-October 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,997
  • Reputation: 383
HUDDLER

Posted 17 February 2012 - 10:45 AM

so at what price-point are cuts worth investigating?


/definitely campaigning, definitely won't pass.


I wish I had the info that our intelligence agencies have. I'm sure there is a reason to keep a stockpile, probably for raw elements needed in nuclear cores. Who knows what future technology brings? We might be attacked by aliens and need those suckers.

The cuts are worth investigating at $10 billion but I just don't know enough. The amount of money we've invested in these things, it would be pretty dumb to just throw them out to save on the power bill.

#36 chris999

chris999

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,174
  • Reputation: 267
HUDDLER

Posted 17 February 2012 - 02:25 PM

.

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.


Agreed. It sounds like the right thing to do, but those weapons are a deterrent to Russia and China. We shouldnt cut anymore than a handful of them unless they do the same.

Considering that the US and Russia/USSR have made it 70 years without using them on each other, I think that it is a good time to consider a proposal to do just that. Something tells me that Russia would not agree... especially considering all of the nukes we have in Europe pointed at them... but it is worth a shot.