View Full Version : Obama calls for nuclear arsenal cuts
Jimbuna
06-19-13, 02:38 PM
Nice one Barack...hopefully negotiations will prove successful.
US President Barack Obama has called for greater efforts to be made to reduce US and Russian nuclear arsenals.
Speaking at the Brandenburg Gate during a visit to the German capital, Berlin, he said he was confident the US could maintain its security while reducing its nuclear capacity by a third.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22962873
Spiced_Rum
06-19-13, 02:42 PM
And the quickest way to get rid of them is to fire them off at some useless piece of land, Syria anyone? :hmmm:
Red October1984
06-19-13, 02:44 PM
I just watched On The Beach yesterday...and I'm literally about to watch The Day After....
:hmmm:
So if I understand it correct they will cut it from killing us 10 times to killing us 5 times over.
Is that correct?
What a reliefe
Markus
Jimbuna
06-19-13, 02:53 PM
So if I understand it correct they will cut it from killing us 10 times to killing us 5 times over.
Is that correct?
What a reliefe
Markus
That's one way of looking at it but surely any reduction must be welcomed.
Spiced_Rum
06-19-13, 03:00 PM
There may be some nuclear bunkers going cheap. Could get a bargain.
Possibly even build a replica submarine in the underground tunnels?
Red October1984
06-19-13, 03:01 PM
That's one way of looking at it but surely any reduction must be welcomed.
But secretly we're going to start working on chemical and biological weapons that are going to be stolen by the Chinese.....
:dead: It'll never end. Peace will never be able to be maintained.
Possibly even build a replica submarine in the underground tunnels?
Why? You wouldn't be able to sail it. Why not just build a real thing and live in that? :hmmm:
Spiced_Rum
06-19-13, 03:10 PM
Why? You wouldn't be able to sail it. Why not just build a real thing and live in that? :hmmm:
To make a real one that can float/sink on command is too difficult. But to use a pre-made tunnel is easier and it can be fitted with dials, etc, to look similar to a submarine. Plus some a powerful PCs to play SH5. Think of a aircraft cockpit in a basement or rec room.
Red October1984
06-19-13, 03:24 PM
To make a real one that can float/sink on command is too difficult. But to use a pre-made tunnel is easier and it can be fitted with dials, etc, to look similar to a submarine. Plus some a powerful PCs to play SH5. Think of a aircraft cockpit in a basement or rec room.
I see what you mean...but if one had the manpower and the money....
Why not? :hmmm:
Betonov
06-19-13, 03:29 PM
I'd make a hydroponics garden. With a mirror system to direct sunlight into the underground.
Constant temperature means the garden would grow during the winter
Stealhead
06-19-13, 03:46 PM
If it is a fair reduction between the US and Russia then I see no problem.Thing is the Russians have been investing much more in cruise missiles with nuclear warheads(or the potential to carry them) that allows them an advantage gap in fact they already have one.So a deal would have to cover both ICBM and various nuclear capable cruise missiles.Other wise one side has would have an unfair balance.
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/russia-might-still-deploy-sub-launched-nuclear-cruise-missiles/
Catfish
06-19-13, 03:58 PM
Well Obama could build atom-bomb-withstanding librariesm and sell the missiles to the Russians, so they have something to stuff their Borei class with.
Good libraries, more money and weapons gone, a win-win ..
.. or not :03:
Platapus
06-19-13, 06:56 PM
The cost of maintaining our aging nuclear arsenal is pretty high. Retiring some of the older systems while maintaining the more recent ones will result in a significant savings.
Nippelspanner
06-19-13, 07:40 PM
And the quickest way to get rid of them is to fire them off at some useless piece of land, Syria anyone? :hmmm:
Only if you go there first and everyone else leaves. Then I'd happily push the button...
Rockstar
06-19-13, 08:03 PM
How about we launch one of those puppies and have us a weenie roast?
http://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa408/jky242/5e43bba1c8630be43186f2644c6581c1.jpg
Stealhead
06-19-13, 08:21 PM
How about we launch one of those puppies and have us a weenie roast?
We did several of those back in the late 40's up into the 60's some of them did not turn out so well just act the "Atomic Veterans".
Red October1984
06-19-13, 09:02 PM
We should send him to Bikini Atoll to have one of those Weenie Roasts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLFliTyydSs
3 for the price of 1 so to say
We cut down on our atomic arsenal...
Yea they are just making 1 atomic bomb = 3-4 old ones
Heard about it yesterday on danish news, where an expert explain that, USA and Russia had developed new type of atomic missile that was stronger than those they had for 20-30 years ago
He said that todays atomic bombs was like 3-4 times stronger.
Therefore it easy to say we are cutting down on the amount of our atomic arsenal. Because the strength will stil be there.
Markus
Wolferz
06-20-13, 08:27 AM
Atom bombs are obsolete. Fuel-air explosives are the shiznitz today.
M O A B anyone?
Obama could dispose of the obsolete arsenal just north of the 38th parallel on the Korean peninsula. That would kill two birds with one stone.:O:
AVGWarhawk
06-20-13, 08:32 AM
Hey, let's throw people off the scent of the numerous scandals in Washington by tossing out talks of nuclear arms reductions. Great idea! Smoke and mirrors. When did Obama become concerned with nuclear arms?
Jimbuna
06-20-13, 08:37 AM
^ Oh ye of little faith :)
Red October1984
06-20-13, 09:46 AM
Hey, let's throw people off the scent of the numerous scandals in Washington by tossing out talks of nuclear arms reductions. Great idea! Smoke and mirrors. When did Obama become concerned with nuclear arms?
Same reason he jumped on Gun Control when we were mad at him for the Economy.
He keeps making non-issues BIG issues and blows it out of proportion just to cover up something....like the NSA Spying...
The thing about that...
I expected it.... It broke and I was like "You guys really didn't expect this?" :timeout:
Obama is just over here "So....about those nuclear weapons....." :hmmm:
AVGWarhawk
06-20-13, 10:01 AM
Right now nuclear arms are not the issue or a concern but it sure does put up a smoke screen as Berneke completely destroys what is left of the economy with pulling the plug on the make believe economy created by the fed buying bonds to the tune of $85 billion a month. How will Mr. Smile and Grin get around this one as he stands in the Rose Garden? The WH is getting deeper in the crap. Let's talk nuclear arms?
Wolferz
06-20-13, 11:15 AM
Feats of legerdomain practiced by presidents from Nixon on down.
That's called bizness as usual.:hmmm:
As long as we the people continue to swallow it, they'll keep spooning it.:stare:
Okay, so now he's talking SART, yet it seems that we've got too many fingers in too many cookie jars. I doubt I need to list everything that's happened since 2008, but I'm sure y'all know what I mean. After we pulled out of Iraq, it just so happened that we needed to find another door to go kick down, or at least it seems that way.
Perhaps it's economical to scale back further, but when we've got Libya, Syria, Iran and North Korea to consider, maybe there also needs to be guidelines on exactly how the nuclear arsenals ought to be downsized.
I'm not one to point fingers, but it's fairly well established that the Russians have traded with them in the past, so if Russia is to downsize their arsenal, there'd need to be a sort of guideline to assure that some rogue state doesn't happen upon a Russian nuke that just happens to be earmarked for reduction.
Of course, I guess we only have SALT I and SALT II to serve as baseline examples, since the world has changed drastically since the late eighties.
I'm not sure if this is smoke and mirrors for mister Oh-Bomber or not, but it seems interesting that this subject comes up amidst the earlier veiled threats from North Korea. Could it be possible that the US still believes that Russia is providing NK with weapons? Personally, I'd think not, as even the Russians aren't that silly to be caught in bed with Pyongyang, but hey - it is a possibility, right?
One wonders how much scorn would be placed upon a Republican president for a similar movement.... :hmmm:
Mr Quatro
06-20-13, 12:07 PM
If it is a fair reduction between the US and Russia then I see no problem.Thing is the Russians have been investing much more in cruise missiles with nuclear warheads(or the potential to carry them) that allows them an advantage gap in fact they already have one.
So a deal would have to cover both ICBM and various nuclear capable cruise missiles.Other wise one side has would have an unfair balance.
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/russia-might-still-deploy-sub-launched-nuclear-cruise-missiles/
"Russia has reserved the right to reload ICBM silos and the treaty doesn't include mobile launchers"
I thought this was a true statement from Mr Ford, but after a little research I'm not sure:
http://russianforces.org/blog/2010/04/new_start_on_rail-mobile_icbms.shtml
Christopher Ford, currently a senior fellow at Hudson Institute. Entitled "Does 'New START' Fumble Reloads and Rail-mobile ICBMs (http://www.newparadigmsforum.com/New_Paradigms_Forum/Nuclear_Weapons/Entries/2010/4/26_New_START_Fumbles_Missile_REloads_and_Rail-Mobile_ICBMs.html)" the piece conveniently summarizes the arguments and "frets about" scenarios in which
"SS-25-style treaty-accountable deployed ICBM launcher could be accompanied by one or more nuclear-armed reload missiles and any necessary reload vehicles,"
or, even worse,
"unlimited numbers of rail-mobile launchers deployed with nuclear-armed missiles."
"All this, of course, is just plain crazy". says the two year old author of the above article (can't find his name) He goes on to say:
The entire Ford's argument is built on an assertion that a launcher that is mobile but not self-propelled cannot be considered a mobile launcher under the treaty definition, so it not limited by the Article II.1.c of the treaty. He goes on suggesting that even a deployed launcher of this kind would be exempt from the treaty limits, but only to prove that once you start from a false statement you can arrive to literally any conclusion, however arbitrary and false.
Speaking seriously, the treaty indeed does not define or otherwise specifically mention rail-mobile launchers. The reason is simple - there are none deployed. The last RT-23UTTH/SS-24 rail-mobile missiles had been removed from service in 2002 and the last base was liquidated in 2007 (http://russianforces.org/blog/2007/08/bershet_missile_base_is_liquid.shtml).
The New START treaty is fairly clear in that it deals only with those systems that exist - since all mobile launchers of ICBM are road-mobile, they are defined accordingly. The treaty does not define a number of other, more exotic systems, like air-launched ballistic missiles, for example. The reason is simple - instead of listing every possible system basing configuration one can come up with (which was more or less what the original START did), the New START has Article V.2, which leaves the issue to the Bilateral Consultative Commission.
Berneke completely destroys what is left of the economy with pulling the plug on the make believe economy created by the fed buying bonds to the tune of $85 billion a month.
I hear Jamie Dimon got his eye on the Fed seat...God help America if he gets it as no one else will.
Forget nukes the world's economy is facing a greater threat. Have you noticed every time a finance mess happens they are now happing faster and worst than the last one.
AVGWarhawk
06-20-13, 12:18 PM
One wonders how much scorn would be placed upon a Republican president for a similar movement.... :hmmm:
The only movement I see here is from the bowels.
AVGWarhawk
06-20-13, 12:19 PM
I hear Jamie Dimon got his eye on the Fed seat...God help America if he gets it as no one else will.
Forget nukes the world's economy is facing a greater threat. Have you noticed every time a finance mess happens they are now happing faster and worst than the last one.
Nothing to see here. :shifty: Let's reduce nuclear arms :D
Nothing to see here. :shifty: Let's reduce nuclear arms :D
You have seen the light, spread the word. :DL
The only movement I see here is from the bowels.
Aaah, but is it a Republican or Democrat bowel movement?
TBH I know that a good number of people are fed up with the US government whether it's blue or red, but I think a greater number of people will suddenly stop complaining when a Republican president gets into power. Curious indeed.
One wonders how much scorn would be placed upon a Republican president for a similar movement.... :hmmm:
Well, we can't ask The Gipper now, can we?
Well, we can't ask The Gipper now, can we?
Touché :03: Funnily enough I was (out of curiosity) looking to see if the talks on START I began before or after the whole Contra affair and 'Reaganomics' but, all credit to the Gipper, it was very early in his presidency.
Honestly though, the sun is hot and politicians lie, no matter what colour they are, all this bi-partisan stuff is very silly in my opinion but some people will always rally to the flag when the bugle is blown. Heck, even Reagan made some impressive screw ups in his time, and yet he had the charisma (and the lack of internet forums) to keep his image relatively intact.
If Subsim had been around forty years ago, I dread to think the arguments that would have been had about Carter. :haha:
Jimbuna
06-20-13, 01:52 PM
Oh I think there's been some catching up since...:)
http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj296/hco12345/Jimmy_Carter_Happy.jpg (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=oTX0tbrBpEVKBM&tbnid=WYHmQQLULQqRHM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sodahead.com%2Funited-states%2Fjimmy-carter-was-an-average-presidentbut-he-was-honesti-like-him-for-itwhat-about-you%2Fquestion-3684011%2F&ei=7E7DUdTEJ4m70QXclICwCw&bvm=bv.48175248,d.d2k&psig=AFQjCNFG02ooV6-Qp5t2WtmMVSyqxEabpg&ust=1371840386468103)http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Z3di6IUmO9U/TdLjh_prejI/AAAAAAAABa4/SKHoN0Sd_I4/s1600/carter-shirt.jpg (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=mA64JLVOex3veM&tbnid=fegWfL_MgUZUHM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblonderandthinner.blogspot.com%2F 2011%2F05%2Fjimmy-carter-will-beat-us-all-to-peanut.html&ei=Ck_DUdTCKKal0AWcsIDICg&bvm=bv.48175248,d.d2k&psig=AFQjCNFG02ooV6-Qp5t2WtmMVSyqxEabpg&ust=1371840386468103)
http://uptake-blogs.s3.amazonaws.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/carter-peanut-373x500.jpg (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=LF1HTjxfPRxrUM&tbnid=KDbN2HgroJc8UM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uptake.com%2Fblog%2Ffamily_va cations%2Fpeanut-jimmy-carter_19627.html&ei=W0_DUZOELaqa0QXY5YGoDA&bvm=bv.48175248,d.d2k&psig=AFQjCNFG02ooV6-Qp5t2WtmMVSyqxEabpg&ust=1371840386468103)http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YNZ-jplSFgs/UWb4SD1atRI/AAAAAAAAK8A/x0iqlWQEPZw/s320/images.jpg (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=carter%20peanut%20farmer%20funny&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=LKBjYgfNJWZsaM&tbnid=8DbdTeaYbGimiM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zimbio.com%2FJimmy%2BCarter%2 Farticles%2FJCq95FHePBt%2FLabor%2BForce%2BParticip ation%2BWORST%2BSince%2BJimmy&ei=OE_DUZvgMIeW0AWsv4CoCQ&bvm=bv.48175248,d.d2k&psig=AFQjCNHv5yVoUUffrNd_igvysqw5MZ8rXQ&ust=1371840690334347)
:haha::haha::haha:
To be fair on the fella, he's done a lot post-presidency, and while he may not be one of the greatest US presidents, he's certainly not one of the worst, not in my eyes anyway, although to be fair, it was (just) before my time.
AVGWarhawk
06-20-13, 02:24 PM
Aaah, but is it a Republican or Democrat bowel movement?
TBH I know that a good number of people are fed up with the US government whether it's blue or red, but I think a greater number of people will suddenly stop complaining when a Republican president gets into power. Curious indeed.
Does it matter? Both are full of it.
Yes, I grow tired of blue and red. Last week I had to renew my license. They asked if I wanted to change my party affiliation. I asked they take out what is shown and leave it blank.
AVGWarhawk
06-20-13, 02:25 PM
:haha::haha::haha:
To be fair on the fella, he's done a lot post-presidency, and while he may not be one of the greatest US presidents, he's certainly not one of the worst, not in my eyes anyway, although to be fair, it was (just) before my time.
And who else has a brother with a beer named after him? :haha:
How could I not have remembered this
In the end of the 80'ies or the beginning of the 90'ies
The swedish news was all ear about a statement from Sovjet.
They have decided to remove som medium range missile from the baltic.
Remember our prime minister saying that it was a great victory for Nordic countries and the world.
What we wasn't been told, was that the russian had only replaced this missil with some new type that could reach longer and therefor could be moved back a few hundred kilometers...so
Do not always listen to the word of an politician.
Markus
Does it matter? Both are full of it.
Yes, I grow tired of blue and red. Last week I had to renew my license. They asked if I wanted to change my party affiliation. I asked they take out what is shown and leave it blank.
I hear you, and it's amazing (and quite interesting) how many people across the world are feeling that way these days. I don't think there's a government in the world that is followed with that much enthusiasm any more, not unless it's at gun-point of course.
Platapus
06-20-13, 03:37 PM
I asked they take out what is shown and leave it blank.
Does your state have open or closed primaries?
Tchocky
06-20-13, 03:45 PM
Hey, let's throw people off the scent of the numerous scandals in Washington by tossing out talks of nuclear arms reductions. Great idea! Smoke and mirrors. When did Obama become concerned with nuclear arms?
Same reason he jumped on Gun Control when we were mad at him for the Economy.
He keeps making non-issues BIG issues and blows it out of proportion just to cover up something....like the NSA Spying...
The thing about that...
I expected it.... It broke and I was like "You guys really didn't expect this?" :timeout:
Obama is just over here "So....about those nuclear weapons....." :hmmm:
Feats of legerdomain practiced by presidents from Nixon on down.
That's called bizness as usual.:hmmm:
As long as we the people continue to swallow it, they'll keep spooning it.:stare:
It's been a consistent project for this President to reduce the nuclear arsenal. Even since his time in the Senate.
Here endeth the factual interruption.
Jimbuna
06-20-13, 04:15 PM
And who else has a brother with a beer named after him? :haha:
LOL :D
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.