A question for USMB lefties

[Rocko]

Why on earth would any of you think it's a good idea to weaken our nuclear arsenal?

I know Obama has plans of eventually ridding the world of nukes, but seriously, shouldn't the plan be to empower the good guys and make sure the bad guys don't get them???

Here's an article on Obama wanting to cut down more of our warheads.

A Cut Too Far | Washington Free Beacon

 

[g5000]

While we are waiting for the lefties to show up, I would like to offer some constructive criticism.

Since our nuclear deterrent is about as serious a subject as it gets, perhaps including something in the topic title to indicate that is what this subject is about would be useful.

Then, perhaps a quote from your link which captures the essence of whatever point you are trying to make.

Using some ambiguous language addressed to "lefties" in the topic title screams shallowness and insincerity. One does not expect an intellectually challenging subject when the well has been poisoned with "hey lefties!" crap. One expects the usual puerile exchanges of insults and cheap shots and a boatload of useless anecdotes.

This topic does not advocate well for whatever passes for "conservatives" these days.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Why on earth would any of you think it's a good idea to weaken our nuclear arsenal?

I know Obama has plans of eventually ridding the world of nukes, but seriously, shouldn't the plan be to empower the good guys and make sure the bad guys don't get them???

Here's an article on Obama wanting to cut down more of our warheads.

A Cut Too Far | Washington Free Beacon

Are we the good guys.? America is the only country to use nukes on another country. And we did it twice. America is the terror capital of the world and has been for 70 years.

 

[g5000]

Are we the good guys.?

Yes.

America is the only country to use nukes on another country. And we did it twice.

And for very good reasons, too.

 

[Peach]

While we are waiting for the lefties to show up, I would like to offer some constructive criticism.

Since our nuclear deterrent is about as serious a subject as it gets, perhaps including something in the topic title to indicate that is what this subject is about would be useful.

Then, perhaps a quote from your link which captures the essence of whatever point you are trying to make.

Using some ambiguous language addressed to "lefties" in the topic title screams shallowness and insincerity. One does not expect an intellectually challenging subject when the well has been poisoned with "hey lefties!" crap. One expects the usual puerile exchanges of insults and cheap shots and a boatload of useless anecdotes.

This topic does not advocate well for whatever passes for "conservatives" these days.

Good points all; still, we have more than enough nukes. Maintaining what we need, and concentrating on location should be the priority, not holding on to old systems.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Who are the "Bad Guys"?

 

[Rocko]

While we are waiting for the lefties to show up, I would like to offer some constructive criticism.

Since our nuclear deterrent is about as serious a subject as it gets, perhaps including something in the topic title to indicate that is what this subject is about would be useful.

Then, perhaps a quote from your link which captures the essence of whatever point you are trying to make.

Using some ambiguous language addressed to "lefties" in the topic title screams shallowness and insincerity. One does not expect an intellectually challenging subject when the well has been poisoned with "hey lefties!" crap. One expects the usual puerile exchanges of insults and cheap shots and a boatload of useless anecdotes.

I admit, you do have SOME valid points. The link I provided accentuates how the POTUS wants to reduce our stockpile and eventual eliminate it all together.

The debate, simply, is why does the left seem to want to disarm us of our nukes? Many of the left do wish for that, no?

 

[Rocko]

Who are the "Bad Guys"?

Ron Paul for one.

 

[g5000]

Good points all; still, we have more than enough nukes. Maintaining what we need, and concentrating on location should be the priority, not holding on to old systems.

I would give serious weight to what our military thinks we need. I would not accept their claims blindly, mind you, but I would certaintly want to know that their input is.

Obama's plan is to eliminate nukes entirely, according to the OP link.

 

[Seawytch]

Why on earth would any of you think it's a good idea to weaken our nuclear arsenal?

I know Obama has plans of eventually ridding the world of nukes, but seriously, shouldn't the plan be to empower the good guys and make sure the bad guys don't get them???

Here's an article on Obama wanting to cut down more of our warheads.

A Cut Too Far | Washington Free Beacon

Because we only need to be able to blow up the entire planet once...

http://m.gizmodo.com/5899569/how-many-nukes-would-it-take-to-blow-up-the-entire-planet

 

[Seawytch]

Good points all; still, we have more than enough nukes. Maintaining what we need, and concentrating on location should be the priority, not holding on to old systems.

I would give serious weight to what our military thinks we need. I would not accept their claims blindly, mind you, but I would certaintly want to know that their input is.

Obama's plan is to eliminate nukes entirely, according to the OP link.

No, that was Reagan...

 

[Rocko]

Here's the little kid in the White House.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPQIKfwbGG0]'America seeks world with no nuclear weapons' - Obama - YouTube[/ame]

 

[WillowTree]

Why on earth would any of you think it's a good idea to weaken our nuclear arsenal?

I know Obama has plans of eventually ridding the world of nukes, but seriously, shouldn't the plan be to empower the good guys and make sure the bad guys don't get them???

Here's an article on Obama wanting to cut down more of our warheads.

A Cut Too Far | Washington Free Beacon

Are we the good guys.? America is the only country to use nukes on another country. And we did it twice. America is the terror capital of the world and has been for 70 years.

fuck you asshole.

 

[Rocko]

Why on earth would any of you think it's a good idea to weaken our nuclear arsenal?

I know Obama has plans of eventually ridding the world of nukes, but seriously, shouldn't the plan be to empower the good guys and make sure the bad guys don't get them???

Here's an article on Obama wanting to cut down more of our warheads.

A Cut Too Far | Washington Free Beacon

Because we only need to be able to blow up the entire planet once...

How Many Nukes Would It Take to Blow Up the Entire Planet?

Lets waste money already spent on these weapons...for what exactly??

 

[BluePhantom]

In reality ridding the world of nukes is the quickest way to START a nuclear war. Now you are thinking "if there are no nukes how would that cause a nuclear war?" Well because we have the knowledge so if two nuclear powers engage in a conventional war it becomes a quick draw to see who can build and launch the fastest. And you must build and launch because you must assume the enemy is going to build and launch and you are forced to beat them to the punch.

Ridding the world of nuclear weapons is all great and fuzzy and cuddly in theory but it's a very dangerous thing to do.

 

[Rocko]

Ridding the world of nukes is so pie in the sky, that I dare anyone to say otherwise.

 

[Borillar]

Why on earth would any of you think it's a good idea to weaken our nuclear arsenal?

I know Obama has plans of eventually ridding the world of nukes, but seriously, shouldn't the plan be to empower the good guys and make sure the bad guys don't get them???

Here's an article on Obama wanting to cut down more of our warheads.

A Cut Too Far | Washington Free Beacon

1000 nuclear warheads, each far more powerful than the atomic bombs that crushed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are more than enough of a nuclear deterrent. Any country that is foolish enough to use them against us now would be wiped out in retaliation. The cold war is over. Now the emphasis should be on preventing nuclear proliferation and keeping terrorist organizations from getting their hands on such devices. It wouldn't be in the interest of any of the nuclear states for anybody else to get them.

 

[Rocko]

Why on earth would any of you think it's a good idea to weaken our nuclear arsenal?

I know Obama has plans of eventually ridding the world of nukes, but seriously, shouldn't the plan be to empower the good guys and make sure the bad guys don't get them???

Here's an article on Obama wanting to cut down more of our warheads.

A Cut Too Far | Washington Free Beacon

1000 nuclear warheads, each far more powerful than the atomic bombs that crushed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are more than enough of a nuclear deterrent. Any country that is foolish enough to use them against us now would be wiped out in retaliation. The cold war is over. Now the emphasis should be on preventing nuclear proliferation and keeping terrorist organizations from getting their hands on such devices. It wouldn't be in the interest of any of the nuclear states for anybody else to get them.

I believe you are correct that the main concern should be preventing nuclear proliferation, mainly in reference to Iran and North Korea, but reducing our stock pile does what for us exactly??

The cold war is not over. It's just not talked about. Russia is always befriending our enemies. Syria, Iran, Russia, and China could be planing joint military exercise.

Syria, Iran, Russia and China plan joint war games, Iranian news agency says | The Times of Israel

 

[bobcollum]

Why on earth would any of you think it's a good idea to weaken our nuclear arsenal?

I know Obama has plans of eventually ridding the world of nukes, but seriously, shouldn't the plan be to empower the good guys and make sure the bad guys don't get them???

Here's an article on Obama wanting to cut down more of our warheads.

A Cut Too Far | Washington Free Beacon

1000 nuclear warheads, each far more powerful than the atomic bombs that crushed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are more than enough of a nuclear deterrent. Any country that is foolish enough to use them against us now would be wiped out in retaliation. The cold war is over. Now the emphasis should be on preventing nuclear proliferation and keeping terrorist organizations from getting their hands on such devices. It wouldn't be in the interest of any of the nuclear states for anybody else to get them.

I believe you are correct that the main concern should be preventing nuclear proliferation, mainly in reference to Iran and North Korea, but reducing our stock pile does what for us exactly??

The cold war is not over. It's just not talked about. Russia is always befriending our enemies. Syria, Iran, Russia, and China could be planing joint military exercise.

Syria, Iran, Russia and China plan joint war games, Iranian news agency says | The Times of Israel

Never underestimate the influence mutually assured destruction can have on a cold war.

We shouldn't get rid of all of them, but most of them.

 

[Wiseacre]

I don't see a need for over a thousand nuclear warheads, much less over 1500. Lower the maintenance cost and lower the risks of an accident. Maybe not by much, but it seems like a good idea to me.