Obama vows to pursue a planet free of nuclear weapons
 

More evidence of crack smoking in Washington by those that fail to read history.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,1407723.story

-S

We wont have to worry about nukes for too much longer.

Antimatter weapons in even minute quantities can devastate countries.

And if anyone really thinks we ARENT developing such I will point and laugh. You just need a big ass particle accellerator and a couple of reactors on site :cool:

Well, Obama's just following in Reagan's footsteps here. The only difference is that Obama hasn't seriously proposed the issue to the Russians.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_09/lookingback

The answer above by you is why I wish people like you wouldn't vote. Please, next election, find something else to do. Go get drunk, watch Ultimate Fighter, or go protest something. Please don't vote. Let the people that are grounded in reality decide the fate of the country. Your answer is just another piece of evidence showing the need for serious voter reform.

Ultimately, we knew all along that Mr. Obama was going to seek unilateral disarmament. He said before the election that he was willing to reduce the US's nuclear weapons capabilities to dangerous levels. 1,000 or less warheads is what he said. Obama is nothing like Reagan. Obama has no idea what has kept the major powers from major warfare for over the last 60 years. Obama imperils the USA by deteriorating our nuclear deterrent capabilities beyond reasonable levels. I was uncomfortable by the last round of cuts to the arsenal. But Obama and his ideas here are downright dangerous.

I hate to burst any bubbles here, but imagining "anti-matter" weapons are in the works as a way to ease your mind over your dangerous choice of Obama, makes no sense. Obama's administration is now cutting other weapons programs we need such as F-22 and other BMD programs. I can assure you, if somebody is going to invest in weapons programs to defend the security interests of America, it wouldn't be a Democrat like Obama. Weapons programs never are helped by electing these types. Pretending they are is just plain hopeless non-reality.

Yes Zach please ignore my Civil duty as a citizen of the united states.... What are you ******* insane?

Ive a better idea (In my opinion) how about you take a hike and check into the nearest asylum since you seem to want "Serious Voter Reform" Which sounds in context to me as "Anything to keep democrats from voting"

I knew you had issues with me but this takes the cake. Are you so right wing that you would rather have your guy win by people not making their voices heard?

North Korea is that way.


BTW I point and laugh as I guess you do not believe they are working on such weapons. Go on being naieve if you wish but there is no way in hell we will let someone else get to that point first.

You know I WAS against Obama going deep into the military budget but with the rash of outright insanity from the right. Maybe we need to bring things a tad bit. Just incase we get another insane right wing president (Spurred on by such as you). Don't need this crap anyway when the future is drones.

Go cry in a corner and fear the terrorists for the next 3 years if it makes you feel better. I will not, Obama may be a dumbass when it comes to the presidency but it takes a TOTAL and complete loon to get us into a situation where we cant defend ourselves. (BTW by that I mean disbanding the military or cutting its funding to 99 cents or somthing)

Dude, no one's seriously developing antimatter weaponry. Why would they, when they can achieve the same destructive effects for a fraction of the cost - not including R&D? Sure, the effeciency of energy dispersion is theoretically much higher with AM, but the cost to blow up a city is the bottom line.

With antimatter we arent talking photon torpedoes or city busters. Even a small amount is enough to devastate a country.

Yes EXTREMELY expensive but needed nonetheless. Can you assure me China is not developing such? Russia?

You can't nobody can but the fact of the matter is making antimatter is not as much sci fi anymore as it is a need of construction and energy. (And of course the need to keep things hush hush so the people dont demand it be shut down in the fear of another cold war)

And yes it is entriely unneeded as even 1000 nukes is enough to devastate the population of any nation.

But an antimatter bomb that kind of power would not just blast cities, it would obilterate everything in sight the power of these things is beyond idmagination.

What did you think NASA was going to be the only users of Antimatter?

Umm, I know the physics of it, thanks. Yes, I can.

Why? Hmm, let's see ... to produce one gram of antimatter at current production capabilities it would take, oh, say, 2 BILLION YEARS to produce ... and that's using the massive decelerator at CERN. If Russia, China, or ANY nation built such a facility they wouldn't be able to hide it.

Oh, and one gram of antimatter would have the energetic discharge of 3 Hiroshima bombs ... not quite worth a billion years, hey?

...and that's not to mention the practical fact that such a weapon would be inherently unsafe for its handlers. When one wants a nuke to go off, they must trigger it, thereby forcing a very specific and complex chemical reaction to occur that would be highly unlikely in an accident. With a theoretical antimatter bomb, to detonate it you'd have to simply stop preventing its detonation. See how dangerous that would be?

Do you have ANY evidence that ANYONE is developing such a weapon or are you just speculating?When they actually START using the miniscule amounts available (in maybe 100 years), there won't be any left for weaponization.

You DID know that antimatter is said to be the most costly substance on Earth, right?

This is funny, from CERN's website: http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/...tAandD-en.html

So what were you saying about antimatter bombs? :up:

PHEER the bomb.

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/2434/strangelove.jpg

Ve can vin ze Anti Matter race mine Fuh...President

:03:

Good message by Obama. He won't come far, for that there are too many nutcases still endoursed about romantic phantasies about winning a nuclear war or loving the cold war concept of nuclear detterence all around the world. It will be some time still until human intelligence has evolved to such a level the concept is abandoned.

Gotta admit it to the guy, he sure knows how to deliver head ups.


"...reduce the US's nuclear weapons capabilities to dangerous levels. 1,000 or less warheads is what he said."

That is so totally SIG worthy :rotfl:

Yes Zach. Serious voter reform as in proof of ID at the polls. Also people on the dole shouldn't be able to vote themselves a paycheck or government benefits. More security and oversight at polling places like the ones in Pennsylvania where some people were voting for Obama 5 times and such. My response to you was more tongue in cheek as in if you think the Obama government is actually investing in new military technologies(like anti-matter weapons?), you got to be crazy. And I don't think it's safe that people who are crazy should be voting. The Obama government is already indicating serious cuts to vital programs we may need for potential future conflict. He has no clue in to how some of these future systems have the value in actually deterring conflict with other state powers. In regards to the terrorist stuff, if you don't see a potential threat from Islamic fundamentalists, and state sponsors of them, and how some of those state sponsors are pursuing nuclear technologies themselves, you're simply not paying attention. Meanwhile Obama's talking about cutting our offensive nuclear forces to dangerous levels, he's planning on gutting BMD programs (which are defensive in nature), and his current policy regarding it is to whine at useless international bodies that don't actually have a way of preventing any of it. I'm sure Kim over in North Korea is quivering over the thought of more UN endorsed sanctions.

Well, we've been over this before. And I realize you have no clue as to what nuclear deterrence is all about, and how the mechanisms work to deter conflict. You just know that you don't like nuclear weapons, and find them illogical. Well, guess what. I don't like them either. Yet, I find them totally necessary. If you understood how deterrence works, and how a global nuclear scenario may play out, you would know that 1,000 warheads is definitely not enough to deter the major powers against a MAD scenario. Not even close. We put 192 warheads on 1 SSBN alone. The consideration is survivability of our triad in conjunction with many other factors. You take out 2 of our SSBN's using the Obama vision and you have eliminated almost 40% of our nuclear striking capability. Yes, this proposal is very dangerous. Since you are not an American voter, I seriously don't need to argue with you about the value of deterrence and number of systems to keep our deterrence viable. My thoughts truly are for those who have an actual say in American military affairs and the voters here who controls the Congress that either supports viable nuclear weapons systems and programs or not. Feel free to agree or disagree. I appreciate your thoughts and concerns. But if you don't vote here, I couldn't care less. No offense intended.

lmao. So, the United States can only destroy the world 5 times over instead of 10?

Have you read this comment in Die Welt yesterday? ;)

http://www.welt.de/politik/article35...yes#reqdrucken

Not the best newspaper around, but sometimes they get their comments right. That one on the Abwrackprämie also was top.

Translation:

"The president is right - and the president is wrong. In his speech in Prague the president correctly pointed at the danger of a new nuclear arms race, and the growing risk of such weapons being used. But wrong is his demand from that, to reach a world free of nuclear weapons. The applaus he got from angela Merkel and Frank-Walter Steinmeier feeds an illusion that would not lead to a better but more dangerous world.

It may be - at least in theory - imaginable to scrap all nuclear warheads in the world. But the knoweldge of how to construct them cannot be scrapped.

And Obama's offer to spread participation in peaceful use of nuclear energy, underlines this aspect. Becasue the way from civilian to military use of nuclear technology is short.

Who wants to give a guarantee that not in some unserious, abandoned part of the world the decision to end participation in the ending of nuclear weapons would be made? the almost-nuclear power Syria and the highly armed North Korea have demonstrated that such programs can be organised with relative discretion.

The world would also become more dangerous, because passing on the option of the nuclear bomb, whose logic was basing on not to use it, would boost a conventional arms race. Where nuclear deterrance is no more, readiness for a war with tanks, bombers and infantry, even chemical and biological weapons is becoming stronger.

Nevertheless, Obama'S hint of the danger of increasing availability of nuclear weapons is important. Would the shia Iran get the bomb, Sunni Saudi-Arabia would do the same, possibly even neighbouring Turkey.

That's why non-proliferation and the substantial reduction of nuclear arsenals must be the goal of politicians, but not "global zero". "More safety" is much more important than "no nukes".

Eliminating nukes is the worst idea I've heard in a long long time.

Sure, it'd be great if they weren't around. Noone would, could or should deny that. But the genie is out of the bottle. Too many people (ie everybody) know how powerful they are. To think that people won't seek them once they're all gone is daft, the knowledge is there, its a matter of paying enough money to get what you want.

Yeah, that's the sad truth, at least for the moment. No glory there for our generation.

Stop wasting your time typing to me if you do not care anways and only american voters count when global destruction is threatend. Makes you look less exculpating in view of a lack of reasonable arguments.

So maybe the United States of America could do without a few dozen warheads. As far as I can understand, you'll have plenty left, and it'd take a nutcase bigger than that waterhead over in North Korea to dare an attack.

Having 1000 or less nuclear warheads is more than enough to annihilate any hostile country. So why the sudden need for a number over that?