Nuts!

[occupied]

Obamination said he hopes to get rid of all nukes someday.

That is the plan....to slowly get rid of them. He lowered the numbers soon as getting into office and wa-laa he now wants more cuts.....huge cuts. Shocking.....

Idiot...he is pointing out cyberspace can do more for us without huge damage like ICBMs.

But of course, you figured he meant to get rid of ICBMs because cyberspace is a new tool.

ICBMs are the our last line of defense for this country along with bombers and SLBMs....so they will be used last, but if you idiots get rid of them then there is no last line of defense.

Jeeze, who is talking about getting rid of them? No one.

Worst case scenario (for you anyway) ends with us having 300 deployed nukes, is that not enough? How about 700? how about the 1550 we have now? Or the thousands of others we could assemble in short order? What is an acceptable number for you? Your love of these obscene weapons is pretty damned creepy. There is no way we will ever have zero nukes, quit worrying about that.

 

[Peach]

Idiot...he is pointing out cyberspace can do more for us without huge damage like ICBMs.

But of course, you figured he meant to get rid of ICBMs because cyberspace is a new tool.

ICBMs are the our last line of defense for this country along with bombers and SLBMs....so they will be used last, but if you idiots get rid of them then there is no last line of defense.

A REAL quote from General Kahler, not from the confounded mind reader, who is SURE he knows what Kahler is thinking:

And the military command in charge of a cyberattack now believes it’s legally in the clear to conduct “offensive operations of any kind,” Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler, its chief, told Reuters. If there is an Israeli attack on Iran, U.S. military planners will probably be taking notes.
****************************************
CYBER attack capability is what the US wants, and needs. That is why Kehler speaks of SPACE & TECHNOLOGY, not the outdated ICBM's. Disarming the opponent by computers is at the forefront of nuclear technology in THIS century, and millenium.

Jeeze, who is talking about getting rid of them? No one.

ICBMs are the our last line of defense for this country along with bombers and SLBMs....so they will be used last, but if you idiots get rid of them then there is no last line of defense. (Gone "Bezerk")
*********************************************
I noted this earlier; the berserk individual has a......VIVID imagination. Obama has not suggested getting rid of all ICBM's; as I posted several times before "bezerk" looked up the words "SLBM & CRUISE", ICBM are kept as a IMPROBABLE back up weapons. With the number of SLBM's & cruise missiles in the world, they might be deployed automatically to kill off the remaining population of the Falkland Islands and a few hardy souls in Antarctica.

 

[GoneBezerk]

There are nuts in the White House that want 0 nukes, I've seen them up close.

The point is lowering our nuke levels with promises from Russia is stupid when we end up with less nukes than China and Russia in addition to NK. It is a numbers game that you don't want to be inferior for survival.

If the Russia-China alliance thingy ever comes back someday, we'd be screwed.

Obamination said he hopes to get rid of all nukes someday.

That is the plan....to slowly get rid of them. He lowered the numbers soon as getting into office and wa-laa he now wants more cuts.....huge cuts. Shocking.....

Jeeze, who is talking about getting rid of them? No one.

Worst case scenario (for you anyway) ends with us having 300 deployed nukes, is that not enough? How about 700? how about the 1550 we have now? Or the thousands of others we could assemble in short order? What is an acceptable number for you? Your love of these obscene weapons is pretty damned creepy. There is no way we will ever have zero nukes, quit worrying about that.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Take a lesson from my LAPD example, I'm watching a movie now so class is dismissed.

 

[percysunshine]

berserk

noun

( sometimes initial capital letter ) Scandinavian Legend . Also, ber·serk·er. an ancient Norse warrior who fought with frenzied rage in battle, possibly induced by eating hallucinogenic mushrooms.


Sorry...couldn't resist....

 

[occupied]

There are nuts in the White House that want 0 nukes, I've seen them up close.

The point is lowering our nuke levels with promises from Russia is stupid when we end up with less nukes than China and Russia in addition to NK. It is a numbers game that you don't want to be inferior for survival.

If the Russia-China alliance thingy ever comes back someday, we'd be screwed.

Obamination said he hopes to get rid of all nukes someday.

That is the plan....to slowly get rid of them. He lowered the numbers soon as getting into office and wa-laa he now wants more cuts.....huge cuts. Shocking.....

Worst case scenario (for you anyway) ends with us having 300 deployed nukes, is that not enough? How about 700? how about the 1550 we have now? Or the thousands of others we could assemble in short order? What is an acceptable number for you? Your love of these obscene weapons is pretty damned creepy. There is no way we will ever have zero nukes, quit worrying about that.

The cold war is over, the need for a balance of terror is not as acute and we could store them in a way where they could be called into service quickly if an arms race ever heated up, keep a few hundred ready and be no worse off except we save several hundred billion dollars a year. There is no way on earth we need to keep 1550 nukes ready at all times, it's a waste. I would love to live in a world where there are no nukes but it's not going to happen, if we are stuck with them I would prefer a program that matches the actual threat, not paranoid fantasies.

 

[Peach]

Shut the fuck up, idiot.

SLBMs are not replacing ICBMs, we still have 3 missile wings located in WY,ND and MT. SLBMs serve a different purpose than ICBMs in our overall scheme which you don't have a clue about, cleatus.

The rest of your ALCMs and SIOP rundown is.....

Dumbass....the ICBM force is pretty cost efficient. The weapons last for decades and require minimum maintenance compared to tanks, ships and airplanes.

They are the biggest bang for the buck and have kept your sorry ass protected ever since you started sucking O2.

ICBM's are being replaced by SLBM's. Cruise missiles are the best course. The launch of an ICBM would be immediately detected. And weapons launched from the former Soviet Union would hit the US FIRST even if launched a short time LATER. (ROTATION OF THE EARTH). We need marine based SLBM's and cruise missiles, NOT ICBM's.
*********************************************
"Additionally, ICBMs are generally considered to be nuclear only; although several conceptual designs of conventionally-armed missiles have been considered, the launch of such a weapon would be such a threat that it would demand a nuclear response, eliminating any military value to such a weapon."
*********************************************
Any general in the US who says NUTS to reducing ICBM's needs to RETIRE or be in a mental health facility.

You seem, uh, DISTRESSED by facts BEZERK. I brought up SLBM's & cruise missiles which ARE are primary nuclear weapons. The focus now however, is on cyber attacks. Catch up on your reading. Or have someone read about recent technology to you.

 

[EriktheRed]

Yeah, I came here to lie to impress a twit like you.

Sorry that some of us in life and done things you don't know about....like flown a jet, been in a submarine, worked with nukes, etc, etc.

Um, I worked with them for around 9 years....I know about the SIOP than you do.

Sure you did and I'm sure you can prove it too. Right?

You don't want to believe others when they talk about their service. Why should anyone here take your word for it?

 

[Peach]

There are nuts in the White House that want 0 nukes, I've seen them up close.

The point is lowering our nuke levels with promises from Russia is stupid when we end up with less nukes than China and Russia in addition to NK. It is a numbers game that you don't want to be inferior for survival.

If the Russia-China alliance thingy ever comes back someday, we'd be screwed.

Worst case scenario (for you anyway) ends with us having 300 deployed nukes, is that not enough? How about 700? how about the 1550 we have now? Or the thousands of others we could assemble in short order? What is an acceptable number for you? Your love of these obscene weapons is pretty damned creepy. There is no way we will ever have zero nukes, quit worrying about that.

The cold war is over, the need for a balance of terror is not as acute and we could store them in a way where they could be called into service quickly if an arms race ever heated up, keep a few hundred ready and be no worse off except we save several hundred billion dollars a year. There is no way on earth we need to keep 1550 nukes ready at all times, it's a waste. I would love to live in a world where there are no nukes but it's not going to happen, if we are stuck with them I would prefer a program that matches the actual threat, not paranoid fantasies.

Beserk really has gone...; tossing out obscenities and claims that SEA LAUNCHED ballistic missiles are not used as land based ICBM's were. Cruise missiles remain our first like of nuclear weapons though. They are programmed, whereas ICBM's are launched, and the trajectory is determined by force and speed.

What became of one of "best"ICBM's, one cited by BESERK, UNDER BUSH:

F.E. WARREN AIR FORCE BASE, Wyo. (AFPN) -- The era of the Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missile, often credited with helping end the Cold War, is coming to its own close Sept. 19 with the final phase of the deactivation process. The deactivation began in October 2002 after President Bush set a plan in motion in 2001 to reduce the country’s missile forces from 6,000 to between 1,700 and 2,200. Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to follow a similar plan. The Peacekeeper is the most powerful, accurate missile ever deployed, said Lt. Col. David Bliesner, 400th Missile Squadron commander here. Capable of carrying up to 10 independently targeted nuclear warheads, the Peacekeeper was designed to strengthen the ground-based strategic policy of the United States. The development of the missile system began in 1979. In 1988, the Peacekeeper became fully operational and 50 missiles were deployed here under operational control of the 400th MS. Each missile cost about $70 million. The deactivation is estimated to save the Air Force more than $600 million through 2010. “There are certainly conflicting emotions associated with deactivation of Peacekeeper and the 400th Missile Squadron,” Colonel Bliesner said. “Thinking about it on a national and global level, anytime we can reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world, it is certainly the best thing to do.” Airmen with the 90th Missile Maintenance Group here spend about 17 days deactivating each missile, while security forces ensure the security of the removal. Senior Master Sgt. Steven Levin, the 90th Maintenance Operations Squadron training flight supervisor, has worked with the Peacekeeper since 1986 when he helped put up the first Peacekeeper site. Since then he has worked as a Peacekeeper guidance technician, team chief, quality assurance, and was most recently in charge of the Peacekeeper deactivation office which developed the Phase 1 deactivation plan in 2002. “When we brought it on line it was very exciting,” Sergeant Levin said. “It has served its purpose and completed its mission.”
*********************************************
ICBM's are going the way of the muskets.

 

[Peach]

Yeah, I came here to lie to impress a twit like you.

Sorry that some of us in life and done things you don't know about....like flown a jet, been in a submarine, worked with nukes, etc, etc.

Sure you did and I'm sure you can prove it too. Right?

You don't want to believe others when they talk about their service. Why should anyone here take your word for it?

BeZerk still writes of the "Peacekeeper" ICBM, deactivated in 2002.
****************************************

 

[JoeB131]

Obamination floated the idea of cutting our nuclear arsenal by 80% to the Pentagon.

The response back to the White House from the Pentagon...."Nuts!"

You mean we can only blow up the world 5 times instead of 20?

Most of these nukes are actually pretty old, and should be decommissioned. If we can get the Russians (whose nukes are even older and in worse shape) it would be putting away the matches and cleaning up the gasoline, as Carl Sagan used to say.