V-Twin Forum banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,710 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
How can this guy go before the public and actually make such a RIDICULOUS propolsal???

2007
Obama to Urge Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
By JEFF ZELENY
WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 — Senator Barack Obama will propose on Tuesday setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, saying the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism, aides say.

In a speech at DePaul University in Chicago, Mr. Obama will add his voice to a plan endorsed earlier this year by a bipartisan group of former government officials from the cold war era who say the United States must begin building a global consensus to reverse a reliance on nuclear weapons that have become “increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective.”

Mr. Obama, according to details provided by his campaign Monday, also will call for pursuing vigorous diplomatic efforts aimed at a global ban on the development, production and deployment of intermediate-range missiles.

“In 2009, we will have a window of opportunity to renew our global leadership and bring our nation together,” Mr. Obama is planning to say, according to an excerpt of remarks provided by his aides. “If we don’t seize that moment, we may not get another.”

His speech was to come one day after an announcement by the Bush administration that it had tripled the rate of dismantling nuclear weapons over the last year, putting the United States on track to reducing its stockpile of weapons by half by 2012.

The exact number of weapons being dismantled, like the overall stockpile, is secret, but officials said Monday that with the planned reductions, the total number of American nuclear weapons would be at the lowest levels since Dwight D. Eisenhower was president.

Under a 2002 treaty, the United States and Russia agreed to limit the number of operational nuclear weapons in their arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012, though that agreement did not address weapons in reserve stockpiles.

Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, is seeking to draw attention to his foreign policy views with the approach of the fifth anniversary of the Congressional vote authorizing military action in Iraq. He is highlighting his early opposition to the war, which he argues is a sign of judgment that is more important than the number of years served in Washington.

Mr. Obama, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, often tells voters that the Iraq war has consumed American foreign policy to the detriment of its ability to address other threats facing the nation. In his speech on Tuesday, aides said, Mr. Obama will assert, as he has before, that the United States should not threaten terrorist training camps with nuclear weapons.

If elected, Mr. Obama plans to say, he will lead a global effort to secure nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years. He also will pledge to end production of fissile material for weapons, agree not to build new weapons and remove any remaining nuclear weapons from hair-trigger alert.

In his speech, according to a campaign briefing paper, Mr. Obama also will call for using a combination of diplomacy and pressure to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs. Aides did not say what Mr. Obama intended to do if diplomacy and sanctions failed.

In setting a goal of eliminating nuclear weapons in the world, Mr. Obama is endorsing a call for “urgent new actions” to prevent a new nuclear era that was laid out in January in a commentary in The Wall Street Journal written by several former government officials. The authors of the article were George P. Shultz, secretary of state in the Reagan administration; Henry Kissinger, secretary of state in the Nixon and Ford administrations; William J. Perry, secretary of defense in the Clinton administration; and Sam Nunn, a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,820 Posts
Lets keep them around

Ya lets keep those nukes you never know when we will want to end the world? Certainly we want the rest of the world to build a few more of them becasue there are no frigin crazies out there who might set one off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,083 Posts
Lets face it, we don't need even a fraction of the nuclear weapons we have. The US has thousands of megatons of nuclear weapons. More than enough to send the planet back into the crustaceous. Even if he kept his promise, not likely, so what? Does it do anything more than make a few people feel better? No, so what's the harm?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,245 Posts
DJW said:
Lets face it, we don't need even a fraction of the nuclear weapons we have. The US has thousands of megatons of nuclear weapons. More than enough to send the planet back into the crustaceous. Even if he kept his promise, not likely, so what? Does it do anything more than make a few people feel better? No, so what's the harm?
he meant Cretaceous. But anyway, does that approximate 2000 number mean only bombs and missles or does it include tactical artillary shells? When you think of targets needed to deter an enemy from MAD it seems that even a number like 300 would be enough to cause one to pause. Are the countries that are "almost there" in their nuclear development working on A bombs or H bombs?
Also, remember when Bush the 1st said "read my lips, no new taxes" and then said after the election that it was only political rhetoric and no one believed him? Maybe Obama is using political rhetoric because everyone knows it ain't gonna happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,083 Posts
Fred1369 said:
he meant Cretaceous. But anyway, does that approximate 2000 number mean only bombs and missles or does it include tactical artillary shells? When you think of targets needed to deter an enemy from MAD it seems that even a number like 300 would be enough to cause one to pause. Are the countries that are "almost there" in their nuclear development working on A bombs or H bombs?
Also, remember when Bush the 1st said "read my lips, no new taxes" and then said after the election that it was only political rhetoric and no one believed him? Maybe Obama is using political rhetoric because everyone knows it ain't gonna happen.
you say potatoe..

I would like to have a discussion in this country on what a reasonable stockpile is. We have about 5k active weapons and another 5k stockpiled. The cost to maintain these facilties has to be astronomical. I understand that it's necessary to make sure that there are enough weapons that a first strike can't take out the ability to retaliate, I just don't think 10k is necessary.

I credit Obama for discussing a subject that has been forgotten since Salt II.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,456 Posts
We must maintain enough nukes to have a strong first and second strike capability, while at the same time eliminating or limiting our enemies’ ability for the same. Russia is unstable with thousands of nukes; Pakistan is a very volatile nuclear power that could be overrun by extremist at any time. Iran is working on a nuclear program and is hell bent on using them. North Korea has attained nuclear power status and has nothing to loose by using them with the slightest provocation.

If anything we should be enlarging and improving the stealth, accuracy, yield and quantity of our own nuclear stockpile and perfecting our strategic missile defense system to minimize any first strike on America. It is a dangerous world and we had better be ready to totally annihilate any threat to our country with overwhelming power, force and destruction unto our enemies. Only the strong survive and under Obama or Clinton we would surly sow the seeds of destruction and surrender for America. Obama is a man with a paper asshole and we only hope he walks in front of a bus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,820 Posts
not good to be first place in this race

Peacekeeper said:
If anything we should be enlarging and improving the stealth, accuracy, yield and quantity of our own nuclear stockpile and perfecting our strategic missile defense system to minimize any first strike on America. It is a dangerous world and we had better be ready to totally annihilate any threat to our country with overwhelming power, force and destruction unto our enemies. Only the strong survive and under Obama or Clinton we would surly sow the seeds of destruction and surrender for America. Obama is a man with a paper asshole and we only hope he walks in front of a bus.
Sure thing lets insure we have enough nuks to be able to blow ourselves up with the rest of the word. We need to keep the Bush mentality in operation so we can be first to retaliate in an end of the world scenario.
 

·
If we gotta wear helmets
Joined
·
210 Posts
toybox99615 said:
Sure thing lets insure we have enough nuks to be able to blow ourselves up with the rest of the word. We need to keep the Bush mentality in operation so we can be first to retaliate in an end of the world scenario.
Wanting to keep our nuclear arsenal modern and up to date is no sillier than wanting to keep our jet fighters, tanks, naval ships, and personal arms up to date.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
Guys who make proposals like this rank right up there with Peter the Hermit and Stephen of the Children's Crusade, and deserve the same notable place in history - with all the rest of the moonbats.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,456 Posts
toybox99615 said:
Sure thing lets insure we have enough nuks to be able to blow ourselves up with the rest of the word. We need to keep the Bush mentality in operation so we can be first to retaliate in an end of the world scenario.
A full scale nuclear war will not end the world, life will go on. It always has and always will in some way, but to roll over in the face of overwhelming threats to OUR NATIONAL SECURITY is blatant stupidity. I am not advacating nuclear war, only the preparation to win it with overwhelming power if we have to. Winning is the only option in that scenario, along with the complete destruction of our enemies should be a priority to prevent any second strike capability.

Who do you think the terrorist will attack first when they obtain a nuclear capability? It will be the US for sure because we represent everything their society views as evil. They will eventually get nukes. They will try and they may get one or two off. What would you do then? Roll over, play dead, call time, pray to Allah?

You can not negotiate your way out of Jihad, you must destroy it. Set an example for future deterrence. Your view in my personal and professional opinion is aiding comfort and support to our enemies and sending in a white flag before the shooting ever starts.

War sucks, war is hell, people die, innocent people. But if you choose to fight a war you better damn well fight to win and if at peace be prepared to fight and win. Obamas statement is cowardice, stupidity, and signals surrender to our enemies. With people like him in government the enemy will win and never have to fire a shot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,820 Posts
another classic line is heard

Your view in my personal and professional opinion is aiding comfort and support to our enemies and sending in a white flag before the shooting ever starts.

.
Once again the classic lines where if you dare to disagree with the leader and his position you become a supporter of the enemy. Anyone who is not in agreement is a communist: welcome back Joe McCarthy. {salute( {salute( {salute(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,456 Posts
toybox99615 said:
Once again the classic lines where if you dare to disagree with the leader and his position you become a supporter of the enemy. Anyone who is not in agreement is a communist: welcome back Joe McCarthy. {salute( {salute( {salute(
Nope, Sorry, this one is just common sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,942 Posts
AZFXSTB said:
I'm thinking I need to move to Alaska, they obviously have the corner on rose colored landscapes !!!drunk!
and no open border with Mexico. :wootdnc:
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top