Obama May Ditch Most US Nukes

Nukes would only be useful to fight off an alien invasion :P

not so useful in fighting human to human wars.......unless you want mass extinction and a nuclear winter. If the U.S wants to dictate what countries can and cannot have nukes they better be prepared to ditch some of theirs as well.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Or you're just to much of a dumbass to get it? ... besides, only perverts would get that joke probably. You don't have to be a d*ck about it. so STFU. :) But in my real opinion, we shouldn't cut down our nukes... So if you wanna bash that opinion, go ahead jefff-row.codymcclain14

Ether you simply don't understand humor or you're painfully trying to cover a stupid comment. Ether way you're an idiot (as evidenced by your Facebook/mom thread. And yeah, I do have to be a dick about it.

And your opinion holds more water than that of the Pentagon how?

You would think a loving Christian who follows Jesus' teachings would rather there be less weapons of mass destruction on the Earth...

If the U.S wants to dictate what countries can and cannot have nukes they better be prepared to ditch some of theirs as well.

XileLord

[QUOTE="whiskeystrike"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Ether you simply don't understand humor or you're painfully trying to cover a stupid comment. Ether way you're an idiot (as evidenced by your Facebook/mom thread. And yeah, I do have to be a dick about it.

And your opinion holds more water than that of the Pentagon how?

codymcclain14

You would think a loving Christian who follows Jesus' teachings would rather there be less weapons of mass destruction on the Earth...

And he, of course, needs the US to have thousands of active nukes in order to do so right?

[QUOTE="codymcclain14"][QUOTE="whiskeystrike"]

You would think a loving Christian who follows Jesus' teachings would rather there be less weapons of mass destruction on the Earth...

And he, of course, needs the US to have thousands of active nukes in order to do so right?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="codymcclain14"] Even God has to kick a lil a$$.codymcclain14

And he, of course, needs the US to have thousands of active nukes in order to do so right?

I'm sorry, but if you don't want your statements to be answered then you should not posting on a public forum.

[QUOTE="codymcclain14"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

And he, of course, needs the US to have thousands of active nukes in order to do so right?

worlock77

I'm sorry, but if you don't want your statements to be answered then you should not posting on a public forum.

1. Person posts on a public forum.

2. Person gets responded to.

3. Person wonders why he gets responded to.

4. Person considers respondee "not worthy" of his time.

5. Person leaves.

That about sums it up.

same ---- will happen with president santorum...

comp_atkins

Holy **** What the ****

president santorum... comp_atkins

no

president Nader... comp_atkins

Fix'd

president Nader... comp_atkins

Fix'd

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]president Nader... BranKetra

Fix'd

As far as I'm aware of, no.

Nukes would only be useful to fight off an alien invasion :P

not so useful in fighting human to human wars.......unless you want mass extinction and a nuclear winter. If the U.S wants to dictate what countries can and cannot have nukes they better be prepared to ditch some of theirs as well.

XileLord

Aliens? Not even. A nuclear explosion at high altitudes would destroy the earths atmosphere and possibly generate an EMP field so wide it destroys a portion of electronic devices across the world.Nukes have no operational benefit other than destruction of human race.

The US has no business telling anyone they can't have nukes if they have nukes themselves. So if Obama gets rid of all nuks then I would support the US against Iran, otherwise it's pure hypocrisykuraimen

Russia and USA are neck in nck with the amount of nukes. Russia will have the upper hand, and Obama knows it.

ristactionjakso

this just an example of every single decision made by obama ( no decision has even been made ) being criticized and politicized.. obama considers a 2% reduction in projected military spending increases we get a "OMG NOBAMMA IS HOLLOWING OUT OUR MILITARY, WE WON'T BE SAFE ANYMORE!!!11!" and we call come here and spout the same tired arguments back and forth over it... same ---- happened when bush was president.. same ---- will happen with president santorum... comp_atkins

Nuclear weapons reductions has been the goal of every U.S. president during my lifetime on both sides of the aisle. It's been a relatively non-controversial subject with bipartisan support. (Hence the existence of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.) But it's actually even MORE important currently with the Cold War over because now the main threat is not the U.S. and the Soviet Union launching thousands of the stupid things at each other. The threat is that if you HAVE thousands, that's a lot of nukes to guard and maintain. What happens if there's a security breach and some terrorists get their hands on one? Reducing available stockpiles in a safe way is a very smart idea.nocoolnamejim

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[QUOTE="Necrifer"]

[QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"]

I don't understand this. Having nuclear weapons is a good thing in case terrorists attack.

Crunchy_Nuts

You can't really nuke terrorists.

[QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"][QUOTE="Necrifer"]

You can't really nuke terrorists.

HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"] Why not. If we just nuke the entire mountains and stuff in Afghanistan we're bound to kill a few.Serraph105

The thing is, you don't need a giant number of nukes, sure you need quite a few and different varieties of them, but possesing the kind of firepower the U.S. had before i.e the ability to destroy the world 28 times over or w/e just isn't/wasn't necessary.

good they are crazy expensive to maintain and are useless for the strategies of the future.

we need to get down to a few dozen active nukes hidden on subs and take the money to fund a new generation of air, land and sea combat drones.

They have enough nukes to blow up the planet 10 times over. They don't need that many, there was no reason for it during the cold war other than to prove that they had them. Its like they're over compensating for something. Actually, I'll run with this metaphor. Its like, the size of a d!ck doesn't effect its actual function, but a bigger one is viewed as more appealing. Then it just becomes excessive and discusting. EWWWW!!!! 70,000 nukes!!!

Its better foreign policy to not have your gigantic d!ck swinging down to the floor when you go to a bar to hang out with your buddies Britain, France, and Germany. Not to mention Iran wouldn't want to take a swing at you.

They have enough nukes to blow up the planet 10 times over. They don't need that many, there was no reason for it during the cold war other than to prove that they had them. Its like they're over compensating for something. Actually, I'll run with this metaphor. Its like, the size of a d!ck doesn't effect its actual function, but a bigger one is viewed as more appealing. Then it just becomes excessive and discusting. EWWWW!!!! 70,000 nukes!!!

Its better foreign policy to not have your gigantic d!ck swinging down to the floor when you go to a bar to hang out with your buddies Britain, France, and Germany. Not to mention Iran wouldn't want to take a swing at you.

RandomWinner

I agree accept that analogy is awful... The bigger... usually is better atleast to women from what I heard as I am a male.

What will they do with all those disposed nukes?

[QUOTE="Mikey132"]

Cool, so the rest of the world can begin drafting Invasion plans?

Wasdie

Nobody will be invading for many reasons.

Number 1: We have 2 massive oceans surrounding us and no other nation has the force projection they would need to land an invasion force.

Number 2: We have the largest navy in the world. You can combine the next 5 navies together and they still aren't nearly the size of ours.

Number 3: There is absolutly no economic gain in invading a country and taking it's resources today

Number 4: There is no military in the world that could handle an occupation of a nation of this size.

There are many more reasons. We don't need thousands of nukes. We just need a strong military like we have now. Nukes are a product of the cold war, and expensive one at that.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Mikey132"]

Cool, so the rest of the world can begin drafting Invasion plans?

Tylendal

Nobody will be invading for many reasons.

Number 1: We have 2 massive oceans surrounding us and no other nation has the force projection they would need to land an invasion force.

Number 2: We have the largest navy in the world. You can combine the next 5 navies together and they still aren't nearly the size of ours.

Number 3: There is absolutly no economic gain in invading a country and taking it's resources today

Number 4: There is no military in the world that could handle an occupation of a nation of this size.

There are many more reasons. We don't need thousands of nukes. We just need a strong military like we have now. Nukes are a product of the cold war, and expensive one at that.

[QUOTE="XileLord"]

Nukes would only be useful to fight off an alien invasion :P

not so useful in fighting human to human wars.......unless you want mass extinction and a nuclear winter. If the U.S wants to dictate what countries can and cannot have nukes they better be prepared to ditch some of theirs as well.

Blue-Sky

Aliens? Not even. A nuclear explosion at high altitudes would destroy the earths atmosphere and possibly generate an EMP field so wide it destroys a portion of electronic devices across the world.Nukes have no operational benefit other than destruction of human race.

[QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Nobody will be invading for many reasons.

Number 1: We have 2 massive oceans surrounding us and no other nation has the force projection they would need to land an invasion force.

Number 2: We have the largest navy in the world. You can combine the next 5 navies together and they still aren't nearly the size of ours.

Number 3: There is absolutly no economic gain in invading a country and taking it's resources today

Number 4: There is no military in the world that could handle an occupation of a nation of this size.

There are many more reasons. We don't need thousands of nukes. We just need a strong military like we have now. Nukes are a product of the cold war, and expensive one at that.

wis3boi

Assuming anyone in Tennessee is actually sober enough to hit the broad side of a barn. That's about as likely as me being appointed global dictator.

The problem is.

If we have lesser nukes than another country

That would give them the nuclear edge.

Would America really want that Image?

World peace is never going to exist.

Man will always be corrupted.

You can make the leaders shake hands, but I bet you they'll be holding a pistol in the other hand behind their back. If America wants to assert its dominance and image as a powerful country, we need moar nukes

Moar than russia

Are people actually reading the article?

Are people actually reading the article?

worlock77

Reading is for Asians and communists

ok lets just make ourselves COMPLETELY defenseless then -__-

ok lets just make ourselves COMPLETELY defenseless then -__-

Neo-ganon

[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]

ok lets just make ourselves COMPLETELY defenseless then -__-

Tylendal

yeah, our small amount of nukes against the entire stockpile of nukes belonging to the enemy that they are undoubtedly hiding because they know how much of a wuss obama is. we take down one or two of their cities, they completely glass us or worse, emp attack us

if the article saying that we would have less nukes than congressmen is true at least