Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal(Pentagon told to map out radical cuts)

UK Guardian ^ | Sep 20, 2009 | Julian Borger

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

There are some that you can’t see on google earth. Unless we have a traitor within.

[Islaminaction]

It is amazing how much damage one man can do.

[comebacknewt]

It will likely kill us all.

That will be liberalism's ultimate legacy.

[The Comedian]

The Soviet "sheep dipped" sleeper agent begins to implement Project Gulliver...

Please, Heavenly Father, show Your mercy on us by removing this abomination from our midst.

[livius]

. He is saying these are the president’s weapons,

What is he talking about? The man is crazy.

Does anybody here remember that after he was inaugurated, he asked if all the military now reported to him directly? He obviously regards the military as Idi Amin Obama's private army. This is insane.

[FreeReign]

There is nothing even remotely American about this President.

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

Expect to see significant numbers of democrats turn on Obama if the democrats get their a$$es handed to them in the November, 2010 elections.

Even rats have the sense to abandon a sinking ship, and self-preservation is one of the congressional democrats leading character traits.

Of course, if this happens it will open the door for Hillary to challenge Zero in 2012....we’ll be trading one Marxist for another.

[rdl6989]

Ubama is the greatest maroon in history.

[tanknetter]

This is from the article...But one official said: “Obama is now driving this process. He is saying these are the president’s weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role.” They’re the president’s weapons? He really scares me if that’s how he looks at it.

In many respects, this can be seen as an opposite of what Harry Truman tried in the late 1940s with the overemphasis on USAF-delivered nuclear weapons at the expense of other nuclear delivery options and conventional capabilities.

The focus for that fight was the interservice conflict between the Air Force and its B-36 and the Navy with the USS United States (CVB-58). The Navy's new carrier was canceled only days after its keel had been laid, resulting in an event now known as the "Revolt of the Admirals".

I have to wonder whether, should Obama try to do something phenomenally stupid wrt destroying the US's deterrence capabilities, there'd be a modern repeat of that event and senior military commanders would start submitting their papers.

I actually think there's a good chance that would happen. Nuclear deterrence has been a keystone of US military doctrine for GENERATIONS. And I'd also think that it would be something 1.) the MSM couldn't ignore and 2.) the majority of the American public would react to in a negative (for Obama and the Dems), way.

[Diggity]

At this point nuking DC may be the only way to get rid of government.

[Defiant]

Let’s just tell him we got rid of them.

[El Gato]

Being elected commander in chief and actually leading our military are two different things.

But he doesn't want to lead it. He wasn't to castrate it.

No money == no military. Especially considering how much of the day to day technical support is done by contractors, most of whom expect to be paid.

Although 'bama is cutting back their numbers too, without increasing the number of uniformed militay and/or civil service employees any where near one for one. More like 1 for 3.

[Defiant]

I guess we’ll find out what happens when the oath to uphold the Constitution conflicts with the oath to follow orders of the President.

[El Gato]

He wasn't to castrate it.

Try that again.

He wants to castrate it.

[what's up]

Ozero did his college thesis on nuclear disarmament.

He had a radical 60's mind back then and he's has a radical 60's mind now.

Nothing's changed.

[Miss Didi]

Ralph Peters in the NY Post on 9/11/09:


Eight years ago today, our homeland was attacked by fanatical Muslims inspired by Saudi Arabian bigotry. Three thousand American citizens and residents died.

We resolved that we, the People, would never forget. Then we forgot.

We've learned nothing.

Instead of cracking down on Islamist extremism, we've excused it.

Instead of killing terrorists, we free them.

Instead of relentlessly hunting Islamist madmen, we seek to appease them.

Instead of acknowledging that radical Islam is the problem, we elected a president who blames America, whose idea of freedom is the right for women to suffer in silence behind a veil -- and who counts among his mentors and friends those who damn our country or believe that our own government staged the tragedy of September 11, 2001. (cont.)

Betraying our dead
Forgetting the vows we made

[El Gato]

I guess we’ll find out what happens when the oath to uphold the Constitution conflicts with the oath to follow orders of the President.

Two points. (1)Officers do not swear to follow the orders of the President. (2)Not a hard decision if he is shown to be ineligible to the office of President, but refuses to step down. If he's not eligible, he's not President, just a usurper sitting in the Oval Office.

[rangerwife]

I understood that from the article that there is going to be a look at use of them as far as doctrine, etc. Ok, whatever, but the fact that he said they’re the president’s weapons just bugged me.

[RC one]

“...consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials”

Nukes have kept the gate closed for 60 years. Getting rid of them will surely open it...again.

[behzinlea]

Works better. Good eye.