A WORLD WITHOUT NUKES ???

[Big Jay]

Oh yeah I am sure Iran and North Korea will go along with this

[Glenn W]

Ok you almost illiterate fools---- since you won't even read what nuclear arms reductions mean (let alone the current revival of one of Reagan's smartest strategic ideas ever), let me explain two things about the new and old treaties and why they are PRO-DEFENSE.
First and foremost-- Neither the US nor Russia is getting rid of their strategic nuks. We'll both have enough on each side to blow the entire planet up several times over.---- this treaty is good for the U.S. and good for Russia. Indeed, it is good for all responsible nations ( those with and w/o nuclear weapons).
There are two major military concerns with nuclear weapons one tactical, the other strategic. On the tactical side, with litterally several hundred armed warheads in place ( each side), there is much more possibility of a rougue launch (by either side). Thus, reducing the number of warheads decreases this possibility and makes it more manageable to keep track of ( by each side).
The strategic reason is perhaps more important and relevant and is aimed to reduce the possibility of active or retired warheads (with enriched atomic fuel) getting into terrorist or rougue nations' hands. Given the somewhat instability of Russia and what happened after the fall of the USSR this is a very relevant concern to all worldly interests). Clearly, Russia won't reduce it's warheads if the U.S. does not reciprocate ---- hense the treaty and concept developed by Ronald Reagan.
Rest assured, we will still have enough nuks to blow the entire world to Jupiter with the treaty and will not be disadvantaged in launching a nuk to any target anywhere in the world.
So---- what's all the sarcasm and lack of support for a pro-defense treaty all about?

[clt_capt]

Oh yeah I am sure Iran and North Korea will go along with this

Both Iran and Korea scare me far more than Russia does - either one would just as likely release a "dirty" bomb as they are to develop and use a fission weapon...

[Phat Mann]

Hey Glen-

It's not that we won't have enough Nukes. We'll still have plenty. My issue is the "promises" that goes along with this plan-

I heard a committment from Obama not to retaliate on a country with a Nuke that attacks the US with Bio, chem, or cyber methods.

Why would anyone telegraph such a strategy in advance? Whether you would or would not, I thought the "deterrent" factor of Nukes was their real power- not the actual use of them!

Just my thought

[NY Bearhunter]

[Jay W]

Glen, us illiterate folks just don't like obama. No matter what he does we are going to take it as a bad decision and use sarcasm in every situation he is involved in. I'm sure you figured that out by now though, with your elevated knowlege level.

[Big Jay]

Ok you almost illiterate fools---- since you won't even read what nuclear arms reductions mean (let alone the current revival of one of Reagan's smartest strategic ideas ever), let me explain two things about the new and old treaties and why they are PRO-DEFENSE.
First and foremost-- Neither the US nor Russia is getting rid of their strategic nuks. We'll both have enough on each side to blow the entire planet up several times over.---- this treaty is good for the U.S. and good for Russia. Indeed, it is good for all responsible nations ( those with and w/o nuclear weapons).
There are two major military concerns with nuclear weapons one tactical, the other strategic. On the tactical side, with litterally several hundred armed warheads in place ( each side), there is much more possibility of a rougue launch (by either side). Thus, reducing the number of warheads decreases this possibility and makes it more manageable to keep track of ( by each side).
The strategic reason is perhaps more important and relevant and is aimed to reduce the possibility of active or retired warheads (with enriched atomic fuel) getting into terrorist or rougue nations' hands. Given the somewhat instability of Russia and what happened after the fall of the USSR this is a very relevant concern to all worldly interests). Clearly, Russia won't reduce it's warheads if the U.S. does not reciprocate ---- hense the treaty and concept developed by Ronald Reagan.
Rest assured, we will still have enough nuks to blow the entire world to Jupiter with the treaty and will not be disadvantaged in launching a nuk to any target anywhere in the world.
So---- what's all the sarcasm and lack of support for a pro-defense treaty all about?

Because we're clearly worried about some half-assed Hadji's reading "Tactical Nuke Launch for Dummies" on their Ipad and launching

Ok so we reduce the nuclear stockpile. Super! We still have North Korea and Iran being the douche nozzles of the world in possession of them.

99% of Nuclear Empowerment is pure posturing. The very act of having a larger stockpile is deterrent enough. Kinda like how many white marlin you "missed" "jumped off" "raised".

So we'll just peacefully destroy these things while the bad guys of the world obtain a more favorable/formidable posture.

[hubris 1]

Glen, us illiterate folks just don't like obama. No matter what he does we are going to take it as a bad decision and use sarcasm in every situation he is involved in. I'm sure you figured that out by now though, with your elevated knowlege level.

I like the way you think. e=mc`2. obama, and Reagan= nothing in common. Glenn, with all good intent, you should teach college. Except for the 9 months in the womb it has to be the safest place to be without thinking. You would make an excellent college professor at a catholic college. Better yet, Swarthmore, wait.....Haverford........all you need to succeed is a volvo.
Yea right, I dont think those muslim pricks have any intention of using the bomb when its available. We should limit them with russia.
Correct me if Im wrong but Reagan beat russia by stepping up the arms race. Germany took down the berlin wall because of his efforts.The only wall obama took down was a living room wall in a co-op in chicago so oprah could have gail over.
A community organizer is running the world. I wish all college students would be taken hostage along with their thinking.
I was a C student, I dont care if you flunk me......

[Glenn W]

Glenn, with all good intent, you should teach college. Except for the 9 months in the womb it has to be the safest place to be without thinking. You would make an excellent college professor at a catholic college. Better yet, Swarthmore, wait.....Haverford........all you need to succeed is a volvo.

You obviously don't realize what I do for a living--
But I do drive a GMC Diesel Pickup

Be that as it may, your retort sounds like my ex wife when she can't provide a defensible arguement---- Alex, you're much to clever for this lack of rebuttal to reality

[hubris 1]

You obviously don't realize what I do for a living--
But I do drive a GMC Diesel Pickup

Be that as it may, your retort sounds like my ex wife when she can't provide a defensible arguement---- Alex, you're much to clever for this lack of rebuttal to reality

Are you already? I didnt know. Anyway, Im being half a smart ass, you know that. But...........I listened to obamas speech. First time I could even listen to him speak. He says all the right feel good things, but I dont like him. Anyway, I dont think JFK, or Reagan faced the same set of conditions that obamam and this country face today. Our threat will not be from Russia......it will come from korea......iran.....or china. As a terrorist attack. Reducing weapons with Russia does nothing to talk sense into any of these countrys. Secondly, at 54 Im a little pissed at how we go back and forth among all these sand monkeys supporting them, next thing you know......they are the enemy.
In my opinion, Israel is the one to support. 110 percent. Also, I dont really like the idea America is willing to take all spent enriched uraninum from foreign countries. I could go on and on but, when they store it in your back yard their will be a lot of protest to be sure. I dont want it in the hands of any arab countries.........period, but its getting a little late for that isnt it?
Of course, Im not the president who needs to take a more diplomatic approach. BUT, I dont think you can compare him to Reagan, or JFK in this situation.......Yet.