GOP pushes back against any further cuts in nukes

[Jroc]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congressional Republicans on Wednesday vowed to block the Obama administration from sharply cutting the U.S. nuclear force, calling potential reductions of as much as 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons "reckless lunacy."

Pointing to the growing number of trouble spots, from Iran to Syria to Egypt, members of the House Armed Services Committee said any significant cuts would undermine the U.S. ability to deter aggression. The Associated Press reported on Tuesday that the administration is weighing several options for new reductions from the current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the committee that no decision has been made and maintaining the current level is one of the options. But that did little to assuage GOP lawmakers.

"I just want to go on record as saying that there are many of us that are going to do everything we possibly can to make sure that this preposterous notion does not gain any real traction," said Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.

The most modest option under discussion would return the United States to a level not seen in more than half a century, when the Soviet Union and the U.S. pushed ahead in a Cold War nuclear arms race. The administration is weighing at least three options for lower total numbers, cutting to around 1,000 to 1,100, 700 to 800, or 300 to 400

.

News from The Associated Press

 

[Missourian]

Glad to hear it. The worst mistake we could possibly make is to reduce our arsonnal to a level that concedes the theoretical possibility of a "winnable" nuclear exchange.

 

[Ed Spacer]

I support the GOP push,totally.

 

[Jroc]

The stupidity of the liberal mind unilaterally disarm cut the military what joke

 

[Seawytch]

OMG...nobody wants to disarm our Nation's military, but we sure as hell don't need the ability to blow up the world six or seven times over.

 

[Jroc]

OMG...nobody wants to disarm our Nation's military, but we sure as hell don't need the ability to blow up the world six or seven times over.

"Peace through strength" idiot unilaterally disarming is stupid

 

[Seawytch]

and we aren't unilaterally disarming. Talk about moronic...

 

[Two Thumbs]

Why would we get rid of any nukes?

We have them, lets keep them.

krist

What would be do with the warheads? Pay to store them somewhere?

 

[Jroc]

and we aren't unilaterally disarming. Talk about moronic...

We aren't who's disarming with us?

 

[rightwinger]

OMG...nobody wants to disarm our Nation's military, but we sure as hell don't need the ability to blow up the world six or seven times over.

"Peace through strength" idiot unilaterally disarming is stupid

I think the President said it best......

. It is my fervent goal and hope…that we will some day no longer have to rely on nuclear weapons to deter aggression and assure world peace. To that end the United States is now engaged in a serious and sustained effort to negotiate major reductions in levels of offensive nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of eliminating these weapons from the face of the earth.

 

[Jroc]

OMG...nobody wants to disarm our Nation's military, but we sure as hell don't need the ability to blow up the world six or seven times over.

"Peace through strength" idiot unilaterally disarming is stupid

I think the President said it best......

. It is my fervent goal and hope…that we will some day no longer have to rely on nuclear weapons to deter aggression and assure world peace. To that end the United States is now engaged in a serious and sustained effort to negotiate major reductions in levels of offensive nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of eliminating these weapons from the face of the earth.

Eliminate what a moron, not possible they have already been invented, they are here use you friken head

 

[konradv]

Glad to hear it. The worst mistake we could possibly make is to reduce our arsonnal to a level that concedes the theoretical possibility of a "winnable" nuclear exchange.

As far as I'm concerned, we only need enough to stock the subs and a small back-up. Percluding a "winnable nuclear exchange" doesn't require we kill them more than once.

 

[Two Thumbs]

OMG...nobody wants to disarm our Nation's military, but we sure as hell don't need the ability to blow up the world six or seven times over.

"Peace through strength" idiot unilaterally disarming is stupid

I think the President said it best......

. It is my fervent goal and hope…that we will some day no longer have to rely on nuclear weapons to deter aggression and assure world peace. To that end the United States is now engaged in a serious and sustained effort to negotiate major reductions in levels of offensive nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of eliminating these weapons from the face of the earth.

Soooo

when do you think the rest of the world will disarm?

Since you live in the same fantasy world big 0 does....

edit for the fast one RW pulled on me. damn, I knew it sounded familiar

Since you live in the same fantasy world are RR does...

 

[konradv]

OMG...nobody wants to disarm our Nation's military, but we sure as hell don't need the ability to blow up the world six or seven times over.

"Peace through strength" idiot unilaterally disarming is stupid

But we're not disarming. Overkill isn't cost effective.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Currently, we have a little over 5,000 nuclear weapons. Those include the weapons sitting on the tips of the Minutemen III missles sitting in silos in Montana and Idaho. Those also include those that sit in bunkers at Barksdale, Minot and McConnell that are to be loaded onto B-52's and B-1's. Additionally, there are approximately 300 at any one time sitting on the tips of the Poseidon's that ride in the belly of the Ohio class SSBN's that skulk in the depth of the oceans. Of the three carrier battle groups currently on deployment at any one time, all three carriers have 'special weapons' at their disposal. That is the triad that this country has used successfully to give idiots a second thought about attacking this nation. Whether Russia in the 50's or now, China, or even potentially Iran, the idea of the triad is sound deterrence.

What scares me is that the technology that I have mentioned is all from the 1970's, although the B-52 is from the 50's. Most of the 5,000 nuclear weapons are cruise missles and gravity bombs that are supposed to be used by the bombers and 'special' weapons that ride on carriers during their deployments. All of the artillery shells and other short range nuclear weapons developed for tactical exchange have been dismantled at a plant in Texas. 5,000 is a far cry from the 30,000+ weapons that we used to have in the early 60's. And let's remember that you don't build these things and forget them. You have to do maintenance on these weapons, especially the cruise missles, the Minuteman III's and the Poseidons.

Now Barry and his group have decided that we should UNILATERALLY destroy all but around 300 - 500 of these weapons. Believe it or not, I agree completely with Seawytch. However, if you do not understand the rotation of the weapons due to maintenance, platform availability, and other factors, then you ASSUME that if we keep 500 weapons, why then we'll have that many to use at any one time. Not even remotely true. Although we have eleven carrier battle groups, only THREE are at sea at anyone time. There are TWO that could be pushed out to sea, given a crisis and enough time. The same is true for those weapons. A number of the Minutemen III's go down at any one time for maintenance, inspection, etc. B-1 and B-52 availability at any one time is around 70%. Only a third of the Ohio's are at sea at any given moment.

You know, when Achmedenajad (SP?) goes to bed at night, I want him wondering if that crazy son-of-a-***** in the White House would actually retaliate with the full weight of the American military should Iran decide to do something really stupid. I want there to be only one answer to that question, and I want that answer to be YES. I want him to KNOW in the depth of his black heart that should they do something really stupid that the United States would turn Iran into the biggest glowing night light in the world.

Reducing the number of nuclear weapons is like a really catchy chant for a sit-in or peace rally. What it doesn't do is to take into consideration reality... Something Barry and his boys have a problem with.

 

[Jroc]

Currently, we have a little over 5,000 nuclear weapons. Those include the weapons sitting on the tips of the Minutemen III missles sitting in silos in Montana and Idaho. Those also include those that sit in bunkers at Barksdale, Minot and McConnell that are to be loaded onto B-52's and B-1's. Additionally, there are approximately 300 at any one time sitting on the tips of the Poseidon's that ride in the belly of the Ohio class SSBN's that skulk in the depth of the oceans. Of the three carrier battle groups currently on deployment at any one time, all three carriers have 'special weapons' at their disposal. That is the triad that this country has used successfully to give idiots a second thought about attacking this nation. Whether Russia in the 50's or now, China, or even potentially Iran, the idea of the triad is sound deterrence.

What scares me is that the technology that I have mentioned is all from the 1970's, although the B-52 is from the 50's. Most of the 5,000 nuclear weapons are cruise missles and gravity bombs that are supposed to be used by the bombers and 'special' weapons that ride on carriers during their deployments. All of the artillery shells and other short range nuclear weapons developed for tactical exchange have been dismantled at a plant in Texas. 5,000 is a far cry from the 30,000+ weapons that we used to have in the early 60's. And let's remember that you don't build these things and forget them. You have to do maintenance on these weapons, especially the cruise missles, the Minuteman III's and the Poseidons.

Now Barry and his group have decided that we should UNILATERALLY destroy all but around 300 - 500 of these weapons. Believe it or not, I agree completely with Seawytch. However, if you do not understand the rotation of the weapons due to maintenance, platform availability, and other factors, then you ASSUME that if we keep 500 weapons, why then we'll have that many to use at any one time. Not even remotely true. Although we have eleven carrier battle groups, only THREE are at sea at anyone time. There are TWO that could be pushed out to sea, given a crisis and enough time. The same is true for those weapons. A number of the Minutemen III's go down at any one time for maintenance, inspection, etc. B-1 and B-52 availability at any one time is around 70%. Only a third of the Ohio's are at sea at any given moment.

You know, when Achmedenajad (SP?) goes to bed at night, I want him wondering if that crazy son-of-a-***** in the White House would actually retaliate with the full weight of the American military should Iran decide to do something really stupid. I want there to be only one answer to that question, and I want that answer to be YES. I want him to KNOW in the depth of his black heart that should they do something really stupid that the United States would turn Iran into the biggest glowing night light in the world.

Reducing the number of nuclear weapons is like a really catchy chant for a sit-in or peace rally. What it doesn't do is to take into consideration reality... Something Barry and his boys have a problem with.

Great you just made the case for getting rid of the old and building the new.

 

[occupied]

Some days I wish they would just blow us all up and get it over with as the human race seems too stupid to live, but the rest of the time I wish they would just develop a nuclear weapons program that matches the actual level of threat and quit pouring untold top secret billions into maintaining some no longer needed balance of terror.

 

[konradv]

The reality is that it wouldn't take 1000s or even 100s to neutralize Iran. Why do we even need gravity bombs, if we've got subs? One would be enough to bring Iran to its knees.

 

[rightwinger]

"Peace through strength" idiot unilaterally disarming is stupid

I think the President said it best......

. It is my fervent goal and hope…that we will some day no longer have to rely on nuclear weapons to deter aggression and assure world peace. To that end the United States is now engaged in a serious and sustained effort to negotiate major reductions in levels of offensive nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of eliminating these weapons from the face of the earth.

Eliminate what a moron, not possible they have already been invented, they are here use you friken head

It wasn't President Obama who said that.......it was President Reagan


I notice you have a nice tribute to Reagan in your signature line.....do you still think he is a moron?

 

[rightwinger]

"Peace through strength" idiot unilaterally disarming is stupid

I think the President said it best......

. It is my fervent goal and hope…that we will some day no longer have to rely on nuclear weapons to deter aggression and assure world peace. To that end the United States is now engaged in a serious and sustained effort to negotiate major reductions in levels of offensive nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of eliminating these weapons from the face of the earth.

Soooo

when do you think the rest of the world will disarm?

Since you live in the same fantasy world big 0 does....

That was not the fantasy world of President Obama, it was the fantasy world of President Reagan