Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's not dress up if you once wore the uniform on active duty.Actually, Pres. Bush was a former Air Force fighter pilot.
And?
Eisenhower play dress up as well?
I mean..he played a big part in winning WWII.
Former soldiers wearing their old uniforms during Veterans Day parades is an example of this.
It's up to the President's discretion whether to follow or disregard protocol............Bush broke protocol.
actually, pres. Bush was a former air force fighter pilot.
and?
Eisenhower play dress up as well?
I mean..he played a big part in winning wwii.
obama served as well
Rule by Russia won't be so bad. Putin is already a better president than obama.
If you hate America you could always move to Russia.
Why move to Russia when Russia is coming to you?
Moron.Breitbart? Sooo funny...
BTW, he will be King Obama after his coronation in January.
Rule by Russia won't be so bad. Putin is already a better president than obama.
If you hate America you could always move to Russia.
Not the point, idiot. The point is the self-proclaimed "constitutional scholar" (my ass he is) doesn't know the Constitution.We already have enough nuclear weapons to spin the world into a nuclear winter 100 times over.by William Bigelow
30 Dec 2012
In an attempt to seize total control over national security and bypass congress, a frightening new step by the Obama Administration is coming into play. As noted in Fridays Wall Street Journal in an op-ed by John Bolton and John Woo, a State Department advisory group that is run by former Secretary of Defense William Perry is advising that the U.S. and Russia both reduce nuclear weapons without a treaty, as a treaty would require ratification by Congress. This would allow Obama and his executive branch to unilaterally cut our nuclear weaponry and ignore the treaty clause of the Constitution.
Some of the inherent problems in the seizure by this executive branch of decision-making power is Barack Obamas desire to deeply cut our nuclear forces. A joint decision with Russia would place long-term limits on our cache of arms, thus placing constraints on us catching up if Russia decides to go ahead and build and the blurring of the lines deliberately drawn by the Constitutions Framers separating the executive and legislative branches power.
***snip***
Read more at:
Obama Seizing Sole Authority for US Defense
This gets so much easier. Liberal don't want guns or weapons so when we split up they will have no military. I don't even know why they keep bleating about how "their" military is going to kill US citizens on their orders.
Don't come crying to us when some Mexican drug gang overruns your capital
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qc8jJ0TjSY]Red Dawn (1984) Scene- The Colonel explains how the invasion happened - YouTube[/ame]
It COULD HAPPEN!!
Not the point, idiot. The point is the self-proclaimed "constitutional scholar" (my ass he is) doesn't know the Constitution.We already have enough nuclear weapons to spin the world into a nuclear winter 100 times over.by William Bigelow
30 Dec 2012
In an attempt to seize total control over national security and bypass congress, a frightening new step by the Obama Administration is coming into play. As noted in Fridays Wall Street Journal in an op-ed by John Bolton and John Woo, a State Department advisory group that is run by former Secretary of Defense William Perry is advising that the U.S. and Russia both reduce nuclear weapons without a treaty, as a treaty would require ratification by Congress. This would allow Obama and his executive branch to unilaterally cut our nuclear weaponry and ignore the treaty clause of the Constitution.
Some of the inherent problems in the seizure by this executive branch of decision-making power is Barack Obamas desire to deeply cut our nuclear forces. A joint decision with Russia would place long-term limits on our cache of arms, thus placing constraints on us catching up if Russia decides to go ahead and build and the blurring of the lines deliberately drawn by the Constitutions Framers separating the executive and legislative branches power.
***snip***
Read more at:
Obama Seizing Sole Authority for US Defense
But, I already knew that a while ago when he executed US citizens without any judicial review.
So, how much smaller could our nuclear arsenal be before we would run the risk of losing a nuclear war?
You basically don't even have to launch any.
You blow off three or so of the bigger ones in your backyard and you would cause a world wide catastrophe that would pretty much wipe out most of the biosphere.
It's not dress up if you once wore the uniform on active duty.Actually, Pres. Bush was a former Air Force fighter pilot.
And?
Eisenhower play dress up as well?
I mean..he played a big part in winning WWII.
Former soldiers wearing their old uniforms during Veterans Day parades is an example of this.
We already have enough nuclear weapons to spin the world into a nuclear winter 100 times over.by William Bigelow
30 Dec 2012
In an attempt to seize total control over national security and bypass congress, a frightening new step by the Obama Administration is coming into play. As noted in Friday’s Wall Street Journal in an op-ed by John Bolton and John Woo, a State Department advisory group that is run by former Secretary of Defense William Perry is advising that the U.S. and Russia both reduce nuclear weapons without a treaty, as a treaty would require ratification by Congress. This would allow Obama and his executive branch to unilaterally cut our nuclear weaponry and ignore the treaty clause of the Constitution.
Some of the inherent problems in the seizure by this executive branch of decision-making power is Barack Obama’s desire to deeply cut our nuclear forces. A joint decision with Russia would place long-term limits on our cache of arms, thus placing constraints on us catching up if Russia decides to go ahead and build and the blurring of the lines deliberately drawn by the Constitution’s Framers separating the executive and legislative branches power.
***snip***
Read more at:
Obama Seizing Sole Authority for US Defense
Dear Willfully Ignorant Liberals:
The Breitbart article referenced an op ed written in the Wall Street Journal.
If you're gonna' bash a source rather than the facts, (which you do all the time with FoxNews) could you at least get the source right?
Shithead....what is the number we need???
Should we have less than Russia??? what about China? North Korea? Iran?
Obamination wants to lower our current numbers which is counter to what CINCSTRAT thinks is safe for this country. I'm going to side with the 4-star General that I know over Obamination's 0 minutes in the US military.
We already have enough nuclear weapons to spin the world into a nuclear winter 100 times over.by William Bigelow
30 Dec 2012
In an attempt to seize total control over national security and bypass congress, a frightening new step by the Obama Administration is coming into play. As noted in Friday’s Wall Street Journal in an op-ed by John Bolton and John Woo, a State Department advisory group that is run by former Secretary of Defense William Perry is advising that the U.S. and Russia both reduce nuclear weapons without a treaty, as a treaty would require ratification by Congress. This would allow Obama and his executive branch to unilaterally cut our nuclear weaponry and ignore the treaty clause of the Constitution.
Some of the inherent problems in the seizure by this executive branch of decision-making power is Barack Obama’s desire to deeply cut our nuclear forces. A joint decision with Russia would place long-term limits on our cache of arms, thus placing constraints on us catching up if Russia decides to go ahead and build and the blurring of the lines deliberately drawn by the Constitution’s Framers separating the executive and legislative branches power.
***snip***
Read more at:
Obama Seizing Sole Authority for US Defense
Moron.Breitbart? Sooo funny...
BTW, he will be King Obama after his coronation in January.
John Yoo and John Bolton: The Senate Should Block an End Run on Nuclear Arms - WSJ.com
Rule by Russia won't be so bad. Putin is already a better president than obama.
If you hate America you could always move to Russia.
Another intolerant "America love it or leave it" asshole.
Accordingly, a State Department advisory group headed by former Defense Secretary William Perry suggests that Mr. Obama ignore Congress. Its November report urges that America and Russia reciprocally reduce nuclear weapons without any international agreement: "Unilateral and coordinated reductions can be quicker and less politically costly . . . relative to treaties with adversarial negotiations and difficult ratification processes."
Recommendation 1. Meet New START early – New START provides that reductions will be implemented within seven years of entry into force (February 5, 2018). The sides could implement the reductions faster and might consider announcing, as parallel steps, that they will implement the reductions prior to the 2015 NPT review conference. In addition, the United States could take off of operational status all of the strategic nuclear weapons it would be reducing.
Recommendation 2. Make progress on nonstrategic weapons – The United States and Russia could lay the groundwork for reducing non-strategic nuclear weapons, thereby expediting the process for a future treaty. To make treaty negotiations easier, the United States and Russia could work towards a shared definition of non-strategic nuclear weapons. The United States should, of course, work closely with its allies on this issue. The United States and Russia could also increase transparency and work towards verification of non-strategic stockpiles and start discussions to better understand each other’s national security challenges and interests that have led to the nonstrategic stockpiles and postures that each retain. Steps include reciprocally disclosing aggregate numbers of nonstrategic weapons - beginning with 1991 data and working toward current data. Work on verification of nonstrategic stockpiles could begin by creating pilot programs to verify the absence of nonstrategic weapons at facilities that housed them prior to implementation of the PNI. The two sides could also initiate lab-to-lab cooperation to resolve technical challenges for verifying warhead-level reductions and dismantlement.
Recommendation 3. Implement mutual reductions below New START, including non strategic weapons – The United States could communicate to Russia that the United States is prepared to go to lower levels of nuclear weapons as a matter of national policy, consistent with the strategy developed in the Nuclear Posture Review, if Russia is willing to reciprocate. This could improve stability by reducing Russia’s incentive to deploy a new heavy ICBM. Similarly, the two sides could define cooperative steps for reduction of nonstrategic weapons including appropriate verification measures. The United States, in considering whether or not to implement specific options for reducing strategic nuclear forces and nonstrategic weapons, will have to address lingering concerns over asymmetries between U.S. and Russian stockpile composition, force structures and reconstitution capabilities, particularly considering the imbalance between U.S. and Russian nonstrategic forces, which some believe will become more salient as strategic weapons are reduced. As we noted in our earlier ISAB report on “Mutual Assured Stability,”[11] the Kissinger-Scowcroft eight “key facts”[12] should be taken into account in evaluating specific options for further reductions.
Shithead....what is the number we need???
Should we have less than Russia??? what about China? North Korea? Iran?
Obamination wants to lower our current numbers which is counter to what CINCSTRAT thinks is safe for this country. I'm going to side with the 4-star General that I know over Obamination's 0 minutes in the US military.
We already have enough nuclear weapons to spin the world into a nuclear winter 100 times over.
Bomb----Yield -----------------------Notes
------------kt TNT
Hiroshima's "Little Boy" gravity bomb--------13–18-------Gun type uranium-235 fission bomb (the first of the two nuclear weapons that have been used in warfare).
Nagasaki's "Fat Man" gravity bomb-------20–22 ------------------Implosion type plutonium-239 fission bomb (the second of the two nuclear weapons used in warfare).
W88 warhead----------475------------Twelve of these may be in a Trident II missile (treaty limited to eight).
Eight That means that one Trident II can have 475x8=3800 kt of TNT yield. 'Fat man' had 22.
(Having managed to need a summer course in English to graduate high school I did a paper on nuclear capability, including effect of detonation. It is something like trying to comprehend the vastness of space.)
