A question for USMB lefties

[Peach]

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.

Yes, maintenance and placement are the key factors in the 'protection' of MAD.

 

[Rocko]

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.

This is, so far, the most reasonable answer...I would like to know the cost involved, and perhaps I may agree.

 

[The T]

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.

Highlighted is WHY you are dismissed.

 

[Borillar]

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.

I wouldn't want to go below the 1000 warhead threshold. Not unless further disarmament was multilateral and verifiable across all the nuclear powers. That said, I don't think that having hundreds or thousands more warheads assures us of anything.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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...

yes that was Ronnies goal.....

 

[bobcollum]

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.

I wouldn't want to go below the 1000 warhead threshold. Not unless further disarmament was multilateral and verifiable across all the nuclear powers. That said, I don't think that having hundreds or thousands more warheads assures us of anything.

I just can't imagine a situation where we'd need even 500 warheads.

I agree, anything that lowers the US arsenal should be done in unison with others that have similar amounts, though I don't think there are too many that rival us in that category.

 

[Billo_Really]

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?

It should be noted, Obama is not a lefty! His foreign policy is the neocon agenda; his domestic policy is more towards the center; and the liberal portions of his campaign platform, never materialized. That's why he lost a lot of the left. I personally, withdrew my support a couple of years ago, when it became obvious he:

• wasn't going to end the wars
• wasn't going to investigate the former administration for war crimes
• wasn't going to stop renditions
• wasn't going to close GITMO

And basically, wasn't going to bring more transparency back to the government, like he had promised.

I can only speak for myself. I'm a liberal. I'm a lefty. And I don't think we should reduce our arsenal lower than Russia's and China's.

Here's something else to think about...

...maybe Russia and China wouldn't be building up their arsenal's, if we weren't running around the globe, making up excuses to attack sovereign nations. One by one, country by country, we're going around like a Led Zepellin tour, bringing our own version of heavy metal.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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

even Superman tried that.....

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

After the Rape on NanKing and the Batann death march, I feel as little remorse for dropping the A-bombs on them as I do for the US firebombing their cities.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

fyi:


March 28, 2012 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke and Mary Kaszynski

History lesson - “Every second term Republican President since the beginning of the nuclear age...proposed drastic changes to the U.S. nuclear arsenal,” writes Nickolas Roth for Democracy Arsenal. In this light, notes Roth, President Obama’s pursuit of treaties and arms reductions in a second term would be a “continuation of decades of work by Republican Presidents in their second terms.”

--George W. Bush approved a 50% cut to the nuclear stockpile, arguing that nukes are outdated and costly. Reagan signed the Intermediate Nuclear Forces in Europe Treaty and initiated START negotiations. Nixon signed SALT I and the Threshold Test Ban Treaty. Eisenhower established a testing moratorium. Can President Obama Live Up to the Accomplishments of His Predecessors? - democracyarsenal.org

Tweet - @Maddow: Obama vs. Reagan, Eisenhower, Nixon, and GWB on nukes. Great context, great article: Nukes of Hazard Blog - Blog

 

[Old Rocks]

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?

Well, if the entire world eliminated nukes, yes, I would be for that. Our present situation, with at least two nations with enough nukes each to eliminate every city on earth is hardly sane.

What is a reasonable level of nukes? I don't know, but would accept the judgement of someone like Eisenhower, a true warrior that hated war.

 

[The T]

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?

Well, if the entire world eliminated nukes, yes, I would be for that. Our present situation, with at least two nations with enough nukes each to eliminate every city on earth is hardly sane.

What is a reasonable level of nukes? I don't know, but would accept the judgement of someone like Eisenhower, a true warrior that hated war.

Whom would that Be? INDIA? PAKISTAN? IRAN? ISRAEL? The SOVIETS? [They still ARE the USSR]...US?

Be specific Crocks.

 

[The T]

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?

It should be noted, Obama is not a lefty! His foreign policy is the neocon agenda; his domestic policy is more towards the center; and the liberal portions of his campaign platform, never materialized. That's why he lost a lot of the left. I personally, withdrew my support a couple of years ago, when it became obvious he:

• wasn't going to end the wars
• wasn't going to investigate the former administration for war crimes
• wasn't going to stop renditions
• wasn't going to close GITMO

And basically, wasn't going to bring more transparency back to the government, like he had promised.

I can only speak for myself. I'm a liberal. I'm a lefty. And I don't think we should reduce our arsenal lower than Russia's and China's.

Here's something else to think about...

...maybe Russia and China wouldn't be building up their arsenal's, if we weren't running around the globe, making up excuses to attack sovereign nations. One by one, country by country, we're going around like a Led Zepellin tour, bringing our own version of heavy metal.

Nice post LoinBore...BLAME US.

What a FREAK you are.

 

[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.

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?

Well, if the entire world eliminated nukes, yes, I would be for that. Our present situation, with at least two nations with enough nukes each to eliminate every city on earth is hardly sane.

What is a reasonable level of nukes? I don't know, but would accept the judgement of someone like Eisenhower, a true warrior that hated war.

He saw it, he thus hated it. MAD has worked so far; when it doesn't, most of us will not know what hit them-'the fire next time'.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

How unfortunate that your applicable paternal antecedent wasn't tasked with invading Japan and, in the process, killed before he could procreate.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Indeed - nuclear weapons have kept the peace since 1945.
Just ask Gort.

 

[Moonglow]

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

How many times over can you annihilate Earth?

 

[The T]

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

How many times over can you annihilate Earth?

Idiot question.

Question IS who's gonna DO it?

Freedom lovers that have it as Big Stick diplomacy...or some Rogue as a threat?

You have TWO people locked in a room with a dispute...the room is doused with gasoline.

ONE has One match...the other a full book.

How MANY does it take?

 

[Moonglow]

I betcha the Air Forces new unmanned re-entry vehicle will have nuke deployment capability, no telling how much of a payload they could deliver?

 

[Moonglow]

with the nuke carrying subs, tht alone is the greatest threat to Russia, China, Iran etc