Doggy Style.. Foregn Policy

[rightwinger]

Haha, I love the alarmist who think that we're:

A. Getting rid of our nukes unilaterally
B. Have no idea about nuclear bombs whatsoever.

The fact of the matter is, we still have the best and most capable delivery systems, as well as having a comprehensive, three point system. This means we have delivery systems on land, air and sea, so that we can withstand first strike capabilities.

In short, any hypothesis that the US wanted to take the world over through nuclear holocaust is absurd. WE could have done so with our technology decades ago, and could still do so now. There are only three nations with nukes powerful enough, already armed and ready to be delivered that could possibly survive a U.S. first strike well enough to respond. At least one of those is our ally, I'm not sure if China or France has better delivery systems, and if we were to get into a nuclear war with Russia this conversation would be void.

As for threatening RADICALS with rational, conventional logic and weaponry. Good luck with that. I mean, we destroyed two countries for ten years and they've gotten more empowered, I don't really think a nuke is required.

As someone accurately pointed out, must nuke aren't as destructive as everything you see on tv. For this purpose, if we wanted to kill civilians, we would keep the course we currently are. Conventional carpet bombing and other traditional tactics can cause just as much wanton destruction as a nuclear bomb.

The concept of nuclear proliferation was that for every nuke they had, you needed three. If the Soviets had a missile silo you wanted to target you could not count on a single strike to take it out. You would target from missiles, bombers and subs to increase your probability of a kill.

By the Russians and the US voluntarilly reducing the number of warheads you automatically reduce the number you need to retaliate or neutralize.

Arguing we need massive numbers of warheads to compete with terrorists is ridiculous. They are a nonplayer and we can ahihilate any target without resorting to nukes

 

[Charles Stucker]

Arguing we need massive numbers of warheads to compete with terrorists is ridiculous. They are a nonplayer and we can ahihilate any target without resorting to nukes

I'm not arguing retaliate against terrorists.
I'm arguing destroy all the nations which support terrorists IF there is a nuclear terrorist attack on American soil. Given the spread of Islam that would require a fair number of nukes.

Nukes are cheaper per death than conventional weapons, and easier to contain once used than biological weapons.

Nuclear winter is hypothesized not certain and would at least counter AGW (That's GoreBull Warming TM for those who don't keep up with acronyms)

 

[saveliberty]

Haha, I love the alarmist who think that we're:

A. Getting rid of our nukes unilaterally
B. Have no idea about nuclear bombs whatsoever.

The fact of the matter is, we still have the best and most capable delivery systems, as well as having a comprehensive, three point system. This means we have delivery systems on land, air and sea, so that we can withstand first strike capabilities.

In short, any hypothesis that the US wanted to take the world over through nuclear holocaust is absurd. WE could have done so with our technology decades ago, and could still do so now. There are only three nations with nukes powerful enough, already armed and ready to be delivered that could possibly survive a U.S. first strike well enough to respond. At least one of those is our ally, I'm not sure if China or France has better delivery systems, and if we were to get into a nuclear war with Russia this conversation would be void.

As for threatening RADICALS with rational, conventional logic and weaponry. Good luck with that. I mean, we destroyed two countries for ten years and they've gotten more empowered, I don't really think a nuke is required.

As someone accurately pointed out, must nuke aren't as destructive as everything you see on tv. For this purpose, if we wanted to kill civilians, we would keep the course we currently are. Conventional carpet bombing and other traditional tactics can cause just as much wanton destruction as a nuclear bomb.

"...we can withstand first strike capabilities." In a nuclear war, NOBODY "wins". The planet is poisoned beyond survivability. How much of the world's food is grown in the US? Sooooooo...how you going to grow safe food? Nuclear policy is dependent on everyone recognizing these things.

Really interested to see how you reconcile nuclear weapons aren't a big threat, but global warming is going to wipe us out.

 

[beowolfe]

Damn.. this is embarrassing.. the leader of the previously free world bent over, doggy style, when it comes to Foreign Policy.
Russia on for seconds with this nuclear arms deal, previously the missile shield. Begging China for more loans to buy an election. Iran policy.. bent over begging for help. North Korea, nothing. Bank bail-outs to foreign countries. Bowing low to Muslims worldwide and blaming America at every opportunity.

Damn .. we sure could do with a cowboy wearing a white hat about now..

And who told you all of this? Or is this more stuff that you wingnuts make up? One sure fire indication of 'made up chit' is not link with the OP.

 

[Charles Stucker]

The planet is poisoned beyond survivability.

Actually it is not. That is an enduring Urban myth. Yes radiation will make people sick for decades in fallout areas, but look at what the actual radiation kill zones are - no more than a 20 mile radius for the biggest nukes. The levels of radiation drop dramatically after the initial explosion, so anyone outside the kill zone will live until cancer (or old age or some other cause unrelated to the radiation) claims them.

Civilization as we know it might not survive, but humanity would and technology would - any "dark ages" effect would be of relatively short duration, knowledge and science are useful tools - even industry would rebound within a generation, again because it is so useful.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea i'm pretty shocked this White House is out there boasting about an arms deal with Russia. Russia just signed a massive arms deal with Venezuela and continues to build Iran's Nuclear facilities. So what did we get out of this "Deal?" It's like these people are living in some kind of "Community Organizer" fantasy world. Putin is playing the rookie for a fool. It's pretty sad.

 

[Samson]

The planet is poisoned beyond survivability.

Actually it is not. That is an enduring Urban myth. Yes radiation will make people sick for decades in fallout areas, but look at what the actual radiation kill zones are - no more than a 20 mile radius for the biggest nukes. The levels of radiation drop dramatically after the initial explosion, so anyone outside the kill zone will live until cancer (or old age or some other cause unrelated to the radiation) claims them.

Civilization as we know it might not survive, but humanity would and technology would - any "dark ages" effect would be of relatively short duration, knowledge and science are useful tools - even industry would rebound within a generation, again because it is so useful.

Frankly, I'd rather not find out which of you are right, so lets just play it safe, M'K?

Plan for the Worst.

Hope for the Best.

Keep enough nukes on hand to discourage Canadian and Mexican Invasions....







Ok, canadian Invasions.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

We gained nothing from their Russia arms deal. How can this White House be boasting about this? Pretty bizarre stuff.

 

[hyakku]

Haha, I love the alarmist who think that we're:

A. Getting rid of our nukes unilaterally
B. Have no idea about nuclear bombs whatsoever.

The fact of the matter is, we still have the best and most capable delivery systems, as well as having a comprehensive, three point system. This means we have delivery systems on land, air and sea, so that we can withstand first strike capabilities.

In short, any hypothesis that the US wanted to take the world over through nuclear holocaust is absurd. WE could have done so with our technology decades ago, and could still do so now. There are only three nations with nukes powerful enough, already armed and ready to be delivered that could possibly survive a U.S. first strike well enough to respond. At least one of those is our ally, I'm not sure if China or France has better delivery systems, and if we were to get into a nuclear war with Russia this conversation would be void.

As for threatening RADICALS with rational, conventional logic and weaponry. Good luck with that. I mean, we destroyed two countries for ten years and they've gotten more empowered, I don't really think a nuke is required.

As someone accurately pointed out, must nuke aren't as destructive as everything you see on tv. For this purpose, if we wanted to kill civilians, we would keep the course we currently are. Conventional carpet bombing and other traditional tactics can cause just as much wanton destruction as a nuclear bomb.

"...we can withstand first strike capabilities." In a nuclear war, NOBODY "wins". The planet is poisoned beyond survivability. How much of the world's food is grown in the US? Sooooooo...how you going to grow safe food? Nuclear policy is dependent on everyone recognizing these things.

Really interested to see how you reconcile nuclear weapons aren't a big threat, but global warming is going to wipe us out.

Where in any place did I say global warming is going to wipe us out? More of your nonsensical, fallacious style of arguing since you lack the intellectual propensity for actual debate.

As I said in the other thread, i'm done with you. You're lack of knowledge on this concept is evident in the fact that you have no idea how radiation poisoning would actually work, or the fact that there have been plans by multiple governments in the event of nuclear holocaust.

To the others:

There's no point in having more than a couple dozen nukes, at BEST. Again, there's no point in using them most of the time. For imperialistic purposes, it's counterproductive as it destroys the land you want to use, which is why they will NEVER be used against middle eastern terrorists (lets ruin out natural gas and oil interests, great fucking idea).

The only thing nukes would be used against are OTHER nations, which again, don't require nukes to cause nearly as much damage and can be targetted more accurately with newer weaponry.

As I said before, the subject of nuclear proliferation, in my opinion, has already been decided on by great minds with oftentimes varied ideologies that all converged to see the benefits behind controlling the nuclear arms spread. When a realist like Kissinger even sees the merits in arms reduction, only a crazy radical could try to deny this wisdom.

 

[rightwinger]

Arguing we need massive numbers of warheads to compete with terrorists is ridiculous. They are a nonplayer and we can ahihilate any target without resorting to nukes

I'm not arguing retaliate against terrorists.
I'm arguing destroy all the nations which support terrorists IF there is a nuclear terrorist attack on American soil. Given the spread of Islam that would require a fair number of nukes.

Nukes are cheaper per death than conventional weapons, and easier to contain once used than biological weapons.

Nuclear winter is hypothesized not certain and would at least counter AGW (That's GoreBull Warming TM for those who don't keep up with acronyms)

Add Charles to the "Not worth responding" list

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Signing an insignificant arms deal with Russia while they're signing a massive arms deal with Venezuela and continuing to build Iran's Nuclear facilities is nothing to celebrate...Unless you live in the same bizarre "Hopey Changey" fantasy land this White House does.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Damn.. this is embarrassing.. the leader of the previously free world bent over, doggy style, when it comes to Foreign Policy.
Russia on for seconds with this nuclear arms deal, previously the missile shield. Begging China for more loans to buy an election. Iran policy.. bent over begging for help. North Korea, nothing. Bank bail-outs to foreign countries. Bowing low to Muslims worldwide and blaming America at every opportunity.

Damn .. we sure could do with a cowboy wearing a white hat about now..

Of course all this is your unsubstantiated bullshit opinion, which doesn't make it true, and in fact is just the opposite. What is it with all these violent,close minded assholes that think everybody in the world has to be an enemy and the only way to deal with the world is bully them and not show any respect. Man some parents really failed big time to instill some values into their children. Don't know how being belligerent and war mongering is considered a virtuous position

 

[hyakku]

Signing an insignificant arms deal with Russia while they're signing a massive arms deal with Venezuela and continuing to build Iran's Nuclear facilities is nothing to celebrate...Unless you live in the same bizarre "Hopey Changey" fantasy land this White House does.

Actually, I live in the very realist international relations world that Obama's administration is pursuing. Kind of reminds me of Realpolitik.

We allow Russia more leniency, in exchange for increased cooperation with Iran they overwatch their nuclear ambitions, ensuring that they stay for civilian purposes. This also is beneficial for Russia's image as a world power, and with the Kremlin clamoring for international prestige, especially given recent events, they'd be foolish not to take this opportunity to become a key player in nuclear arms and energy talk. In addition, Russia's nuclear energy sector benefits from deals with Iran.

What do we get from this? A more secure Iran. With them being overseen by a resolute Russia as well as their nuclear components being provided and scanned by Russia, we'll have greater assurance that their nuclear ambitions are in check. Improved relations with Russia will also result in greater arms reduction treaties later, and as an emerging economic power once again, there's many areas such as energy that we can find convergence for.

A nuclear Iran is not a good thing for Russia nor the US. It will destabilize the region even further, and give them more negotiating power with the US and Israel in foreign policy, and on domestic energy issues with Russia. This is not something either country works, hence, convergence on this issue is a very intelligent realist precept to embrace.

This hopey changey world you envision must be the future many right leaning radicalists envision where emerging economic powers won't vie for power with the US and everyone will listen to us because we're the good guys. It's time to get real before we lose our grip on the global stage.

 

[saveliberty]

Actually, I live in the very realist international relations world that Obama's administration is pursuing. Kind of reminds me of Realpolitik.

We allow Russia more leniency, in exchange for increased cooperation with Iran they overwatch their nuclear ambitions, ensuring that they stay for civilian purposes. This also is beneficial for Russia's image as a world power, and with the Kremlin clamoring for international prestige, especially given recent events, they'd be foolish not to take this opportunity to become a key player in nuclear arms and energy talk. In addition, Russia's nuclear energy sector benefits from deals with Iran.

What do we get from this? A more secure Iran. With them being overseen by a resolute Russia as well as their nuclear components being provided and scanned by Russia, we'll have greater assurance that their nuclear ambitions are in check. Improved relations with Russia will also result in greater arms reduction treaties later, and as an emerging economic power once again, there's many areas such as energy that we can find convergence for.

A nuclear Iran is not a good thing for Russia nor the US. It will destabilize the region even further, and give them more negotiating power with the US and Israel in foreign policy, and on domestic energy issues with Russia. This is not something either country works, hence, convergence on this issue is a very intelligent realist precept to embrace.

Look noob, none of the sanctions are going to amount to anything. Our incompetent President scores an absolutely worthless piece of paper just like Copenhagen.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Actually, I live in the very realist international relations world that Obama's administration is pursuing. Kind of reminds me of Realpolitik.

We allow Russia more leniency, in exchange for increased cooperation with Iran they overwatch their nuclear ambitions, ensuring that they stay for civilian purposes. This also is beneficial for Russia's image as a world power, and with the Kremlin clamoring for international prestige, especially given recent events, they'd be foolish not to take this opportunity to become a key player in nuclear arms and energy talk. In addition, Russia's nuclear energy sector benefits from deals with Iran.

What do we get from this? A more secure Iran. With them being overseen by a resolute Russia as well as their nuclear components being provided and scanned by Russia, we'll have greater assurance that their nuclear ambitions are in check. Improved relations with Russia will also result in greater arms reduction treaties later, and as an emerging economic power once again, there's many areas such as energy that we can find convergence for.

A nuclear Iran is not a good thing for Russia nor the US. It will destabilize the region even further, and give them more negotiating power with the US and Israel in foreign policy, and on domestic energy issues with Russia. This is not something either country works, hence, convergence on this issue is a very intelligent realist precept to embrace.

Look noob, none of the sanctions are going to amount to anything. Our incompetent President scores an absolutely worthless piece of paper just like Copenhagen.

because you say so with nothing to back it up, must be true. Why are so many people this dishonest or stupid as to think responses like that show their intelligence and ability to discuss things

 

[saveliberty]

because you say so with nothing to back it up, must be true. Why are so many people this dishonest or stupid as to think responses like that show their intelligence and ability to discuss things

Do you even know what the sanctions are? Do you really think Russia will allow any sanction that might result in the US military entering Iran? Has a UN sanction worked anywhere?

 

[hyakku]

Actually, I live in the very realist international relations world that Obama's administration is pursuing. Kind of reminds me of Realpolitik.

We allow Russia more leniency, in exchange for increased cooperation with Iran they overwatch their nuclear ambitions, ensuring that they stay for civilian purposes. This also is beneficial for Russia's image as a world power, and with the Kremlin clamoring for international prestige, especially given recent events, they'd be foolish not to take this opportunity to become a key player in nuclear arms and energy talk. In addition, Russia's nuclear energy sector benefits from deals with Iran.

What do we get from this? A more secure Iran. With them being overseen by a resolute Russia as well as their nuclear components being provided and scanned by Russia, we'll have greater assurance that their nuclear ambitions are in check. Improved relations with Russia will also result in greater arms reduction treaties later, and as an emerging economic power once again, there's many areas such as energy that we can find convergence for.

A nuclear Iran is not a good thing for Russia nor the US. It will destabilize the region even further, and give them more negotiating power with the US and Israel in foreign policy, and on domestic energy issues with Russia. This is not something either country works, hence, convergence on this issue is a very intelligent realist precept to embrace.

Look noob, none of the sanctions are going to amount to anything. Our incompetent President scores an absolutely worthless piece of paper just like Copenhagen.

Where did i mention sanctions? Are you referring to sanctions by Bush that failed to amount to stopping their nuclear program, but did succeed in breeding more anti-Americanism in the region?

Jeez, maybe if we just ignore you you'll just take a seat in the dunce corner or something.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Actually, I live in the very realist international relations world that Obama's administration is pursuing. Kind of reminds me of Realpolitik.

We allow Russia more leniency, in exchange for increased cooperation with Iran they overwatch their nuclear ambitions, ensuring that they stay for civilian purposes. This also is beneficial for Russia's image as a world power, and with the Kremlin clamoring for international prestige, especially given recent events, they'd be foolish not to take this opportunity to become a key player in nuclear arms and energy talk. In addition, Russia's nuclear energy sector benefits from deals with Iran.

What do we get from this? A more secure Iran. With them being overseen by a resolute Russia as well as their nuclear components being provided and scanned by Russia, we'll have greater assurance that their nuclear ambitions are in check. Improved relations with Russia will also result in greater arms reduction treaties later, and as an emerging economic power once again, there's many areas such as energy that we can find convergence for.

A nuclear Iran is not a good thing for Russia nor the US. It will destabilize the region even further, and give them more negotiating power with the US and Israel in foreign policy, and on domestic energy issues with Russia. This is not something either country works, hence, convergence on this issue is a very intelligent realist precept to embrace.

Look noob, none of the sanctions are going to amount to anything. Our incompetent President scores an absolutely worthless piece of paper just like Copenhagen.

Where did i mention sanctions? Are you referring to sanctions by Bush that failed to amount to stopping their nuclear program, but did succeed in breeding more anti-Americanism in the region?

Jeez, maybe if we just ignore you you'll just take a seat in the dunce corner or something.

Yeah, I failed to see sanctions mentioned anywhere in your post

 

[saveliberty]

Look noob, none of the sanctions are going to amount to anything. Our incompetent President scores an absolutely worthless piece of paper just like Copenhagen.

Where did i mention sanctions? Are you referring to sanctions by Bush that failed to amount to stopping their nuclear program, but did succeed in breeding more anti-Americanism in the region?

Jeez, maybe if we just ignore you you'll just take a seat in the dunce corner or something.

Yeah, I failed to see sanctions mentioned anywhere in your post

No good answer huh? Oh, I get a pass, because I didn't mention sanctions.
What, Iran is just going to stop because 0bama and Russia say stop?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

We gained nothing from signing this arms deal with Russia. It's a Win/Win for them for sure. This can't be said for us though.