Since the problems with Iran are a major focus of the summit how can that be true?
Besides which Israel is not boycotting the summit, its just that Bibi is not attending in person.
Further detatched from reality is Skys claim about the countries involved. Israel says its Turkey and Egypt that were going to be pushing the issue of Israel signing up to the NPT.
It should also be noted that all countries which are not part of the NPT will be on the agenda anyway, so thats North Korea, Pakistan, India and errrr....Israel.

Yea it at a place in Maryland called Fort Detrick :03:

You assume we would retaliate against population centers in response. Did you consider nuclear retaliation against military and government facilities? Sure you would kill plenty of civilians but we would not necessary aim for max destruction of cities. A low yield ground burst (bad for city burning) can be very useful for taking out subterranean facilities.

Why not give them a warning? "In one week we will vaporize the following city unless your unconditionally surrender... One week after that we will vaporize the following city..." How long do you think a government would remain in power with an ultimatum like that?

Personalty I'm in favor of frying them with a bomb pumped X-Ray laser from orbit. :rock:

for a list of countries with suspected CBRN weapons I recomend you read this

Warning an enemy nation when you want to hit them, and where. Nice. At the time you do, what is of vital importance for them has been moved away. And additonal weapons they may have, will have been fired before your retaliation starts.

Is this another funny effort to make war more "humane"? The more humane war is, the more easy it will be launched - by own side, or by the other side becasue it feels invited by the sofeting up of your response. Obama is a infantile fool with that statement of his. "We will not strike back in full strength if you attack us in this and that fashion."

Brilliant.

It's possible to imagine using a nuke, but the scenarios are very limited.

This is actually a good reason to continue work on new weapons, particularly deep penetrators. A penetrating ground burst maximizes local fallout, but minimizes distant fallout. This is critical to actually be able to use the weapon without irradiating nearby (friendly countries, or hostile nuclear powers) nations.

Having such weapons lends credibility to the threat to use them, and increases deterrence.

Maybe we need to think along the lines of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress ;)

The idea is terror. Systematic destruction of a country until it surrenders or the population rises up and deposes the government. If an enemy has weapons capable of striking back obviously we would take them out!

It worked with Japan. It worked against the Iraqi Army in Desert Storm. :yep:

Love that book. Robert A. Heinlein is one of my favorite authors.

This from the guy who said Reagan was the best President over the last 150 years...:roll:

And speaking of Reagan...did you know he also wanted to reduce the nuke stockpile by 1/3? The Daily Show had a segment on it!!! With Reagan in video footage SAYING it!!

The fact that you would use The Daily Show as a reference in a non cmedy related discussion is :har: because Stewart while funny(usually) is an idiot and the show is not a real news show as many in my generation seem to think.Can't tell you how many times in college I heard some idiot say well on the daily show, I usually set them straight on it, I hurt a few feelings to say that least.

The Cold War was a different situation than now.There were two super powers each operating on mutually assured destruction and reducing the warheads were a way to try to calm down things, but those days are over.Russia is not a super power but has plenty of nukes so good to try and balance things in that sense.However, several other nations have them or are in process of getting them and pose or will pose a threat so we should not reduce our deployed nukes while rest of the world is working on having more and more.Islamic terrorists are not the only threat, the traditional threat of unfriendly nations is still real and will be even more so in coming years, so we should not reduce our warheads or stop developing them to just "maintain" them, or we will end up with outdated equipment etc.Reagan too wanted a world without nukes and said so, most of us do but Reagan lived in the real world and knew it would not happen because you can not uninvent something.Obama really thinks by reducing our abilities and readiness, the world will follow our lead, take our hands and go play in the grassy field to watch the rainbows come out, the naivete is just stunning.

Reagan was the greatest President of last century and would dare say in the top five in history thus far for sure.I do believe it is time to add him to Mount Rushmore.Reagan turned things around economically, lowered taxes, took steps that allowed us to win the cold war and cause the collapse of the plague known as communism, he deserves credit for that because without him we would prob still be dicking around with them.Reagan revolutionized American politics, had fans on both sides of the aisle thus "Reagan Democrats" and left office with a 64% approval rating.Reagan also appointed brillant pro constitution judges like Scalia to supreme court and federal courts, a legacy that stands today, thanksfully.Overall, great President and no others really measure up.

Actualy its spot on as the predictable kneejerk reaction of the wingnut fringe is hilarious.
Though it would have been funnier if the administrration had decided to not renew the START process when it lapsed, then the nuts would be complaining that the white house were throwing away Reagans legacy.

I hope you didn't set them straight in the same way you have been informing the forum about the secret army of nazi dentists that are going to take over America.

Pretty sure I never said anything about secret army of nazi dentists.I was simply bringing up his remarks during campaign and the possible connection to provision in the health control bill, based on obama's past and present associations and obvious ideology.I did say I could be wrong and hope I am, because it will be bad for us all.Call me what you want, but I think independtly and do not blindly follow obama as you seem to do.You once again gave the typical kneejerk moonbat reaction to anyone who dares to challenge barry and the dangerous path he has put us on.

I set them straight by informing them that the daily show is not real news, it is comedy/satire and not even fair in anyway because Stewart is a stupid liberal and anyone who gets their news from him without looking it up or watching real sources and takes him seriously is a f*cking moron.This was mostly freshman year but surprised me and angered me at same time how many took stweart serious.I really hope things turn around in my generations thinking or we are indeed screwed.

Dude, this is what you can expect when you feed a troll. :yep:

Ok - the treaty itself is one thing...

However - the Nuclear Posture Review... has anyone READ this thing? Jesus H Christ - I knew that the Obama administration was more about running a campaign than they were about actual governing but I started reading that thing and my head about popped off....

Read it yourself....

http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010...w%20Report.pdf

The very first sentence says it all:

"This Nuclear Posture Review provides a roadmap for implementing President Obama's agenda for reducing nuclear risks to the United States, our allies and partners, and the international community."

Excuse me? That is NOT what this is freaking for! Its a guidline of how we WILL act - not a "roadmap for an agenda"! The Secretary of Defense's intro page consists of 6 paragraphs - only ONE of which has anything to do with the actual NPR! Of course you get to page iii (yes - they didn't even wait till they got to a real, numbered page) and there sits Barack speaking to the masses on the "world stage"in Prague....

What the bloody hell - this is little more than a propaganda document. In the executive summary - its all about Obama's speeches - .... Its filled with "the President expressed", "he declared" and the ever popular campain slogan of "we can". Then there is the "Among Key Adminstrative Initiaves:" - more well we wanna do this or that or this other thing.

This did NOTHING to enhance our security. It instead is exactly what it claims to be - instead of saying "If X occurs - Y will happen" or leaving things open ended enough to have OPTIONS. This is like putting a sign in front of your house and saying "I don't own a gun, but I have a baseball bat somewhere - so if you rob me - shoot me before I find that bat or else!" I meant - its beyond asinine!

Speaking of signs - aka PICTURES...

3 of Barack - Speaking to the masses in Prague, Chairing a Security Council meeting (he did what?), and him signing arms reduction agreements while AT the Kremlin....

Secretary of Defense Gates gets 2 - one at Minot Air base and the other at a press conferent in Turkey

Biden gets 1 - giving a speech at the National Defense Institute

Hillary gets 1 - meeting with the Russian President

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu gets 1 - speaking at a building dedication (guess he never did anything more impressive?)

Chairman of the JCS gets 1 - with the Russian Chief of Staff

9 pictures of Administration or the President "doing something important"....

11 other pictures are found throughout the brochure - depicting weapons platforms, cleanup of radioactive material and an aerial shot of one "highly critical" site in Tennesse.... How nice to provide that interesting target shot for whomever might want it. :damn:

A posture review is one of two things.... They are either "If -then" statements - aka "If you nuke us - then we will nuke you" - or they are specifically vague statements that allow you enough leeway to act in response to a future, unknown situation. They are not fairy foo foo agenda's of lets all sing kumbaya and pretend that everyone is willing to sit and roast marshmellows with us. They are not "well as long as you don't do X then I won't do Y". They sure as hell are not intended as a "roadmap for an agenda" - since an agenda is something you WANT to happen - and when it comes to nukes - you sure as hell better home that there is never a need to even go LOOK at the NPR!

These people are beyond not having a clue. It seriously needs to be November, so at least the idiocy will be in check at least somewhat.....

Haplo,

Well other than just slamming Obama, your post does not support your position at all. Have you read President Bush's NPR from 2001? Or the Clinton one from 95? Reading those would give you a better insight on what the NPR is for.

Other than your opinion, what do you base this on? The guideline for how we will use nuclear weapons is the SIOP and that is not released to the public.

"The Nuclear Posture Review was chartered in October 1993 to determine what the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. security strategy should be."

Source http://www.dod.mil/execsec/adr95/npr_.html

I don't know where you got the idea that the NPR is some sort of "A posture review is one of two things.... They are either "If -then" statements - aka "If you nuke us - then we will nuke you" - or they are specifically vague statements that allow you enough leeway to act in response to a future, unknown situation."

The NPR is the US security strategy concerning nuclear weapons. It reflects both the DOD and the President's views on the overall strategy.

Read the Clinton NPR and the Bush NPR, Both are also lacking if-then ultimatums. That's not what the NPR is for. That is what the SIOP is for.

Put your emotions aside for a moment and think about it. Why would any President publish, in an unclassified document, the triggers for the use of nuclear weapons? They wouldn't. Clinton did not do it, Bush did not do it, nor did Obama do it. But all three did reduce the significance of nuclear weapons with respect to the overall security strategy of the United States, while at the same time retained the capability to use nuclear weapons if needed.

As for the pictures..

You really spent time counting the pictures? You know, I have spent many hours reviewing the NPR at work, and we never bothered to count the pictures. I will tell our other analysts that they really need to start focusing on pictures. :har:.

Instead of counting pictures, how about checking out this

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...79-503544.html

A layman's guide to the Obama NPR.

You are getting spun up over something little. Read my post on the Obama NPR in this thread. It is simply not that big of a deal. The President still has the authority to nuke anyone he feels deserves nukin. If a shootin war starts, the NPR goes right out the window as it is just a strategy document.

Unless your post was just another excuse to slam Obama. :yawn:

Yes. However, ground penetrating nuclear bombs already exist in the US, the problem is the kinetic energy makes them not penetrating deep no matter the release height - objects in free fall do not accelerate endlessly. I seem to remember that even a drop from 15 km does not make them penetrating deeper than just 10 m, and only a third of that if the ground is frozen.

I took a shortcut and checked German Wikipedia. They list the B-61-11, and they refer to info in the NPR (Nuclear Posture Review) of January 2002 for describing it's characteristics: more than 5 kilotons, penetrates 7 meters at max into the ground when dropped from 13 km altitude, in frozen ground only 2-3 meters. The US possesses around 50 of these weapons.

I would say in the kT-range it makes a difference if you explode a nuclear warhead that is nburried deep in a drill hole, several hundred meters and more. but it makes no difference if you detonate a warhead on the ground, or just 5 or 10 meters below the ground.

I would give that more weight if it came from someone who didn't say how much they enjoyed Glenn Beck, or if it was someone who hadn't recently posted one of the funniest conspiracy theories going.
So when you had this conspiracy theory recently did you look it up and use real reliable sources?
If I recall correctly even after lots of people had posted all the information needed on the topic you still persisted with your wild claims based on a clip off you-tube.

Thats true, you said the health workers were a secret private army akin to the Gestapo.