Obama to Close ICBM Squadron

[Book of Jeremiah]

Obama To Close Nuclear Missile Squadron To Appease Russians - Investors.com

Never mind his promises to U.S. lawmakers that he would maintain a strong land-based ICBM force, a promise he made to garner votes for ratification of the New START Treaty.

Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester, both Democrats from Montana, home of many ICBMs, issued a press release in 2010 backing New START and saying the missiles would "continue to play a key role in U.S. national security for decades to come."

The Air Force now deploys three ICBM wings on its bases in Wyoming (Francis E. Warren), North Dakota (Minot), and Montana (Malstrom). Each operates 150 ICBMs, with a squadron consisting of 50. The Obama administration proposes getting rid of one of those squadrons. Destruction of the silos would make it nearly impossible to reconstitute that squadron, if needed.

*
Some one sent me this news article and found it alarming. It reports Obama is closing down our nuclear silos? I will post a clip from the article. I really have no idea if this is significant or not but the concern is that the decision was made over a promise he made to the Russians. I'm not joining the discussion - but I thought you might want to see the news. Some military people here might have a better idea of what this is about. Have a nice day!

 

[Old Rocks]

So, by your article, we have 450 silos, each with a missile that most likely has multiple warheads, and it is proposed that we shut down 50 of these silos. So there will be 400 left. Those 400 have the ability to destroy the world several times over. Do we need that much? Are the russians shutting down an equivelant nuclear capacity?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

So, by your article, we have 450 silos, each with a missile that most likely has multiple warheads, and it is proposed that we shut down 50 of these silos. So there will be 400 left. Those 400 have the ability to destroy the world several times over. Do we need that much? Are the russians shutting down an equivelant nuclear capacity?

I think one of us misunderstood the article. Did you read page 2? He implied the reductions were necessary but the docs do not verify that claim. It says he wants to reduce by 1/3 across the board if I understand this right. I just wondered what that meant - if there are any military folks who understand all this. Here is a clip from page 2:


The document says the reductions are necessary to "meet the New START Treaty compliance date by closing an ICBM squadron and eliminating the associated Launch Facilities." But that's not true. New START does not require destruction of the silos.

So why the unnecessary move to cut our offensive missile deterrent force after the administration has scrapped Phase IV of our European-based missile defense, which was the proposed replacement for the ground-based interceptors and missile radars that were scuttled in a betrayal of our Polish and Czech allies?

The president has said he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons, which critics point out seems to mean only a world without U.S. nukes.

He sees U.S. military supremacy as an anachronistic example of the American exceptionalism for which he has apologized so many times.

To that end, in his June 2013 Berlin speech, President Obama spoke of his desire to unilaterally reduce deployed U.S. nuclear forces by up to one-third.

Never mind his promises to U.S. lawmakers that he would maintain a strong land-based ICBM force, a promise he made to garner votes for ratification of the New START Treaty.

Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester, both Democrats from Montana, home of many ICBMs, issued a press release in 2010 backing New START and saying the missiles would "continue to play a key role in U.S. national security for decades to come."



Read More At Investor's Business Daily: Obama To Close Nuclear Missile Squadron To Appease Russians - Investors.com
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook



It is to me something we need to all be praying about. Pray that these decisions do not lead to some bad outcome in the future. - Jeri