Obama vows to pursue a planet free of nuclear weapons

[SUBMAN1]

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

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

-S

[Zachstar]

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

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

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

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.

[Zachstar]

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)

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

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.

[Zachstar]

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?

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

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"

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.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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

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.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

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.

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.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

He said before the election that he was willing to reduce the US's nuclear weapons capabilities to dangerous levels.

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

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

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

The idea has never been to "destroy the world 5 times over". The idea is that we'd have so many weapons that even the destruction of a significant portion of them would not see the end of our MAD deterrent.

What I don't get is why people (especially liberals) give a crap at how many nuclear weapons we have, since the PROVEN PRINCIPLE of it all is that we have so many so we don't have to use them.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by Aramike

What I don't get is why people (especially liberals) give a crap at how many nuclear weapons we have, since the PROVEN PRINCIPLE of it all is that we have so many so we don't have to use them.

Stop making this a liberal/conservative issue. The guy who's worshiped as the greatest conservative president of all didn't think we needed any nukes. Reagan's real goal in his disarmament talks was to eliminate all nuclear weapons. His advisers never wanted to let him talk to Gorbachev alone, since he would keep bringing up the global zero option, and the advisers (who believed in nuclear deterrence) would always have to go in afterwards and say "well, he didn't REALLY mean that..."

Imagine the outcry if Obama said he wanted to share our best defensive weapon system with the Russians. People would think he was the softest guy ever in the White House. But Reagan publicly proposed doing exactly that with SDI.

Here's some good documents on Reykjavik: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB203/index.htm

From the second meeting (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...Document11.pdf ): "We are even prepared to share the benefits of strategic defense, the President said. We will agree now to a treaty committing to do so in conjunction with the elimination of ballistic missiles."

When Reagan said those sorts of things directly to the leader of our most feared enemy, why is it suddenly so horrible for Obama to say he doesn't want to have nukes around?

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

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

As I said above, and as Aramike also contends, it's not just significantly greater proportions of nuclear weapons as a means to destroy the same targets 10 times over. The reality is we currently carry 192 warheads on each of our SSBN's alone. If any potential enemy can trail and destroy just 2 of our SSBN's, they have successfully eliminated very close to 40% of our entire fielded strategic arsenal using the Obama numbers. That puts a chill up my spine.

The ICBM's and bomber part of the triad are also much more vulnerable systems. Bombers are not even on any kind of nuclear alert any longer. And what about system failures of any remaining parts of any returned nuclear strike? I expect most things will work as advertised, but you can never fully get rid of all the unforeseen malfunctions. There is way more to consider than what you allude to.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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.

Sorry Bewolf. I don't mean any insult to you. It's just that me and you went back and forth on this stuff just a few weeks ago, and we pretty much just came to different conclusions about any merits of deterrence. We simply disagree. I didn't say your opinion didn't matter. I'm just simply not going to argue too much about it with anybody that does not have any say in US policy as a voter. You simply don't have any power or say in American nuclear policy, and I already understand your POV. Therefore, I won't waste too much effort trying to influence your opinion. You have been clear where you stand. And while I respect your opinion, I highly disagree. I don't mind discussing this topic with you, but we've gone around in circles too many times on it. And you're simply not going to change this American's mind about how I expect our policy makers to act on this issue with our deterrent forces.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

As I said above, and as Aramike also contends, it's not just significantly greater proportions of nuclear weapons as a means to destroy the same targets 10 times over. The reality is we currently carry 192 warheads on each of our SSBN's alone. If any potential enemy can trail and destroy just 2 of our SSBN's, they have successfully eliminated very close to 40% of our entire fielded strategic arsenal using the Obama numbers. That puts a chill up my spine.

Isn't 60% enough?
Have you considered the alternate solution of dispersing? For example, you can have 96 warheads per sub and twice as many subs. As a bonus, the SLBM would fly a little farther, or have more room for anti-ABM decoys?
And I thought the US was so confident its SSBNs are invulnerable...

Sorry Bewolf. I don't mean any insult to you. It's just that me and you went back and forth on this stuff just a few weeks ago, and we pretty much just came to different conclusions about any merits of deterrence. We simply disagree. I didn't say your opinion didn't matter. I'm just simply not going to argue too much about it with anybody that does not have any say in US policy as a voter. You simply don't have any power or say in American nuclear policy, and I already understand your POV. Therefore, I won't waste too much effort trying to influence your opinion. You have been clear where you stand. And while I respect your opinion, I highly disagree. I don't mind discussing this topic with you, but we've gone around in circles too many times on it. And you're simply not going to change this American's mind about how I expect our policy makers to act on this issue with our deterrent forces.

Quite frankly, you are not in that much better a position than Beowulf or any other foreign national. We've got zero, true. But unless you are some kind of nuclear planner, it isn't like you've got more than about 1 in 100 million (or whatever is the number of egligible voters in the US these days). When you count in everything, such as how a voter can only affect any policy (nuclear, economic or otherwise) VERY indirectly, you've got even less than that, but you get my point. I'll call that a pretty insignificant difference.
The only chance you can beat that is if you persuade some other American. For example, if your posts somehow convinces 10 Americans, then you've increased your influence to 10 in 100 million. Yet any foreigner would, by that logic, have almost as much power as you to influence American nuclear policy - your advantage is but 1 in 100 million, nothing that a winning argument in front of an audience might not cover

As for "proven principles", I must really wonder. Admittedly, the choices that happened weren't proven to be a failure, in that no nuclear war occurred, so far. That's the best that can be said about deterrence.
As an aside, if we go by "proven principles" (read the policies used in the Cold War), then ABM itself is non-justifiable. They were so fearful to go outside MAD that they even signed a ABM Treaty in 1972. America's decision to go ahead with its ABM plans is, in itself, a deviation from what worked (or didn't fail) in the past, and we are in untried territory already.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Sorry Bewolf. I don't mean any insult to you. It's just that me and you went back and forth on this stuff just a few weeks ago, and we pretty much just came to different conclusions about any merits of deterrence. We simply disagree. I didn't say your opinion didn't matter. I'm just simply not going to argue too much about it with anybody that does not have any say in US policy as a voter. You simply don't have any power or say in American nuclear policy, and I already understand your POV. Therefore, I won't waste too much effort trying to influence your opinion. You have been clear where you stand. And while I respect your opinion, I highly disagree. I don't mind discussing this topic with you, but we've gone around in circles too many times on it. And you're simply not going to change this American's mind about how I expect our policy makers to act on this issue with our deterrent forces.

I sense a bit of UScentrism here. You see, this discussion, at least in my book, is about world conditions in general. This includes China, Russia, Britian, France, Israel, Pakistan, India, Brazil, North Korea and all the other countries and groups in possession of the bomb. I doubt all these have the right to vote in the US either.

Agreed to the rest, however.

[Max2147]

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