Obama proposes to further slash nuclear warheads

[konradv]

That would still be the case if we cut the number in half.

Is that your expert opinion? I guess dismantling weapons somehow "saves money" according to your new calculus, as well. I suppose you think America's entire nuclear arsenal is primed and ready to go at a moment's notice, requiring serious upkeep?

Yes, care to present evidence to the contrary?

 

[krych3k]

That would still be the case if we cut the number in half.

Is that your expert opinion? I guess dismantling weapons somehow "saves money" according to your new calculus, as well. I suppose you think America's entire nuclear arsenal is primed and ready to go at a moment's notice, requiring serious upkeep?

Yes, care to present evidence to the contrary?

That's what I thought.

 

[rightwinger]

Makes the world safer...

How?

...and the US taxpayer does not have to pay to support tens of thousands of warheads, missiles, subs, aircraft and their support personnel

How much support personnel do you think is required for maintaining stored warheads? How much "support" is needed for these missiles and warheads? I want numbers. What is the cost of a dismantling program that you are sympathetic towards? If you're making an economic argument, good luck substantiating it.

We have not used a single one of the suckers in 65 years.....why do we need thousands of them?

Can I share your crystal ball to see into the future? Or does it only work in your hands?

How does it make us safer?

We reduce the total number of nukes in play. Using your crystal ball to see into the future, we don't know what kind of crazy maniac will have his finger on the trigger for either side

Cost numbers are hard to calculate because these are secret programs. Nuclear submarines do get pretty expensive as do modern bombers. There is a large infrastructure of personnel and facilities needed to maintain, procure, protect and operate these weapons. People who have done absolutely nothing for 65 years

http://defensenewsstand.com/NewsSta...7-billion-to-acquire-operate/menu-id-720.html

DOD: New Nuclear Subs Will Cost $347 Billion To Acquire, Operate

 

[konradv]

So you still believe the hyperbole from the 60s about America being able to "destroy the world" several times over?

What's changed? Don't you think 2000+ nukes could do the trick? I don't see how you could call it hyperbole. Massive overkill has been our basic strategy since missles became dominant.

Is it your expert opinion that 2000 nuclear warheads could "destroy the world" several times over?

That's what I said. If you have data to show that it wouldn't, let's see it.

 

[konradv]

Is that your expert opinion? I guess dismantling weapons somehow "saves money" according to your new calculus, as well. I suppose you think America's entire nuclear arsenal is primed and ready to go at a moment's notice, requiring serious upkeep?

Yes, care to present evidence to the contrary?

That's what I thought.

Why are you wasting our time? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

 

[krych3k]

How does it make us safer?

Does having a military make us safer? If you're wise enough to recognise that it does, then you may be sharp enough to understand how nuclear weapons are a part of this security.

We reduce the total number of nukes in play. Using your crystal ball to see into the future, we don't know what kind of crazy maniac will have his finger on the trigger for either side

We're talking about reducing the number of nuclear weapons on our side. We have no way of knowing what Russia will or won't do. A handshake between Obama and Putin isn't enough to convince me to trust the honour system. Please share your crystal ball with the rest of us, since you seem very comfortable predicting a future where nuclear weapons aren't necessary in America's projection of military power.

Cost numbers are hard to calculate because these are secret programs. Nuclear submarines do get pretty expensive as do modern bombers. There is a large infrastructure of personnel needed to maintain, procure, protect and operate these weapons. People who have done absolutely nothing for 65 years

So you think nuclear submarines are those that are carrying nuclear warheads? That really tells us everything about your military expertise, doesn't it?

 

[Katzndogz]

If anyone saw the total contempt and disdain on Putin's face when he appeared with obama, it's not hard to understand that Russia isn't reducing anything.

 

[konradv]

How does it make us safer?

Does having a military make us safer? If you're wise enough to recognise that it does, then you may be sharp enough to understand how nuclear weapons are a part of this security.

We reduce the total number of nukes in play. Using your crystal ball to see into the future, we don't know what kind of crazy maniac will have his finger on the trigger for either side

We're talking about reducing the number of nuclear weapons on our side. We have no way of knowing what Russia will or won't do. A handshake between Obama and Putin isn't enough to convince me to trust the honour system. Please share your crystal ball with the rest of us, since you seem very comfortable predicting a future where nuclear weapons aren't necessary in America's projection of military power.

Cost numbers are hard to calculate because these are secret programs. Nuclear submarines do get pretty expensive as do modern bombers. There is a large infrastructure of personnel needed to maintain, procure, protect and operate these weapons. People who have done absolutely nothing for 65 years

So you think nuclear submarines are those that are carrying nuclear warheads? That really tells us everything about your military expertise, doesn't it?

Translation: I don't really know anything, so lets keep trying to destroy the world one more time!

 

[martybegan]

What, exactly, is the benefit of reducing our nuclear arsenal?

There is no benefit to America. There is only a less secure America both materially and in terms of perceived power. It is an invitation for further aggression against America from her enemies. The benefit is political: the expansion of appeal from Obama and the Democratic party to the so-called "anti-war/pro-peace" crowd (typically communists, socialists, and certain libertarians).

Makes the world safer and the US taxpayer does not have to pay to support tens of thousands of warheads, missiles, subs, aircraft and their support personnel

We have not used a single one of the suckers in 65 years.....why do we need thousands of them?

To make sure we don't have to use them for the next 65 years.

 

[krych3k]

If anyone saw the total contempt and disdain on Putin's face when he appeared with obama, it's not hard to understand that Russia isn't reducing anything.

Are you suggesting that Obama's teleprompter speech skills and his "reset" strategy aren't effective?

 

[rightwinger]

How does it make us safer?

Does having a military make us safer? If you're wise enough to recognise that it does, then you may be sharp enough to understand how nuclear weapons are a part of this security.

We reduce the total number of nukes in play. Using your crystal ball to see into the future, we don't know what kind of crazy maniac will have his finger on the trigger for either side

We're talking about reducing the number of nuclear weapons on our side. We have no way of knowing what Russia will or won't do. A handshake between Obama and Putin isn't enough to convince me to trust the honour system. Please share your crystal ball with the rest of us, since you seem very comfortable predicting a future where nuclear weapons aren't necessary in America's projection of military power.

Cost numbers are hard to calculate because these are secret programs. Nuclear submarines do get pretty expensive as do modern bombers. There is a large infrastructure of personnel needed to maintain, procure, protect and operate these weapons. People who have done absolutely nothing for 65 years

So you think nuclear submarines are those that are carrying nuclear warheads? That really tells us everything about your military expertise, doesn't it?

1. Nuclear weapons are part of our defense infrastructure. The question is are we any safer with 10,000 warheads vs 1000?

2. You are the one demonstrating you have no idea how these treaties work. The reduction is verified by BOTH sides. They come here and watch us destroy warheads and platforms. We go there and watch them do the same

3. If you bothered to read my link, you would see that it pertains to "ballistic nuclear submarines". What that means for people like you who can't tell the difference is these are the subs armed with nuclear missiles

 

[krych3k]

There is no benefit to America. There is only a less secure America both materially and in terms of perceived power. It is an invitation for further aggression against America from her enemies. The benefit is political: the expansion of appeal from Obama and the Democratic party to the so-called "anti-war/pro-peace" crowd (typically communists, socialists, and certain libertarians).

Makes the world safer and the US taxpayer does not have to pay to support tens of thousands of warheads, missiles, subs, aircraft and their support personnel

We have not used a single one of the suckers in 65 years.....why do we need thousands of them?

To make sure we don't have to use them for the next 65 years.

Well said, although I'm not sure we're gonna have that kinda luck. Still, more important to me is that we don't get hit by anything, rather than no nuclear warheads being used by us. In other words, I'd rather we use nuclear weapons on our enemies than us get hit by another 9/11, Fort Hood, or Boston Marathon. I reject "proportional response" doctrine.

 

[krych3k]

1. Nuclear weapons are part of our defense infrastructure. The question is are we any safer with 10,000 warheads vs 1000?

How many warheads do we have? How many do we need? Share with us more of your non-existent military expertise.

2. You are the one demonstrating you have no idea how these treaties work. The reduction is verified by BOTH sides. They come here and watch us destroy warheads and platforms. We go there and watch them do the same

Please share with us some historical precedents of similar treaties. Perhaps the Versailles Treaty? You really think America will permit Russian inspectors into our nuclear facilities to verify that we're keep our end of the bargain and vice versa? Yes, you certainly know "how these treaties work".

3. If you bothered to read my link, you would see that it pertains to "ballistic nuclear submarines". What that means for people like you who can't tell the difference is these are the subs armed with nuclear missiles

You wrote "nuclear submarines". Why would I ever go to a link posted by you, anyways? You assume too much of yourself.

 

[rightwinger]

]

1. Nuclear weapons are part of our defense infrastructure. The question is are we any safer with 10,000 warheads vs 1000?

How many warheads do we have? How many do we need? Share with us more of your non-existent military expertise.

2. You are the one demonstrating you have no idea how these treaties work. The reduction is verified by BOTH sides. They come here and watch us destroy warheads and platforms. We go there and watch them do the same

Please share with us some historical precedents of similar treaties. Perhaps the Versailles Treaty? You really think America will permit Russian inspectors into our nuclear facilities to verify that we're keep our end of the bargain and vice versa? Yes, you certainly know "how these treaties work".



You wrote "nuclear submarines". Why would I ever go to a link posted by you, anyways? You assume too much of yourself.

As you lose point after point you are becoming just tiresome. Time to stop digging that hole?

1. How many warheads do we have? How many do we need? Share with us more of your non-existent military expertise.


Our current START treaty has us reducing to 1500 warheads by 2018. Based on military studies of "what we need" President Obama is proposing reducing the number to 1000

2. Please share with us some historical precedents of similar treaties.

Since Reagan we have used non-proliferation treaties to reduce nuclear stockpiles from over 10,000 to roughly 3000 today. These treaties are verified by both sides to ensure compliance. Yes, we allow their inspectors in and they allow ours in to watch the destruction of weapons

3. You wrote "nuclear submarines". Why would I ever go to a link posted by you, anyways? You assume too much of yourself

If you can't read the links in a thread why bother posting? It is you who obviously can't tell the difference between attack submarines and ballistic submarines. Myself, I used to work on a submarine base

 

[krych3k]

Since Reagan we have used non-proliferation treaties to reduce nuclear stockpiles from over 10,000 to roughly 3000 today. These treaties are verified by both sides to ensure compliance. Yes, we allow their inspectors in and they allow ours in to watch the destruction of weapons

Nonsense. Non-proliferation treaties preceded Reagan. Moreover, they did not involve any cross-inspection with the Soviet Union. This *never* involved Soviet inspectors in American military facilities. No nuclear weapons were destroyed during Reagan's tenure or after with Soviet or Russian inspectors.

This back and forth has passed my threshold for stupidity. Good day.