Obama's nuclear spill --Why would the O Force give up America's security secrets?

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | THE WASHINGTON TIMES

[opentalk]

The Obama administration has revealed - for the first time ever - the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal in detail. This information was a closely guarded secret for more than 60 years. By unloading such sensitive information, President Obama is responsible for deliberately exposing a chink in America's defensive armor. The Land of the Free is less secure for it.

On orders from the White House, the Pentagon on Monday released the exact number of nuclear warheads as the 189-nation nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference got under way in New York. The U.S. nuclear stockpile now stands at 5,113 warheads, down from a high of 31,255 in 1967.

Never before has the United States allowed either friend or foe access to such precise information about our nuclear assets - and for good reason. A healthy dread of these awesome weapons has deterred aggression against the American homeland and kept the nation safe.

Disarmament officials and purported peace activists claim the frank U.S. disclosure will elicit similar openness on the part of other nuclear powers, leading them to follow suit. We're not so sure that neighborhood bullies will decide that giving away state secrets is the cool thing to do on the nuclear playground. While revealing the size of the stockpile might earn some diplomatic plaudits for an approval-seeking Mr. Obama, surrendering such information constitutes shortsighted defense policy.

[Seaplaner]

On orders from the White House, the Pentagon on Monday released the exact number of nuclear warheads ...The U.S. nuclear stockpile now stands at 5,113 warheads, down from a high of 31,255 in 1967.

“Why would the O Force give up America's security secrets?”

That, I suspect, is quite simple.

Consider Mister Obama’s bff and fellow disliker of the responsibility that…”we remain a dominant military superpower”

You know…

.

This guy.

.

[opentalk]

o needs to go

[fso301]

I was in Minuteman missiles in the late 1970's. At that time the Soviet Union had so many warheads they were targeting Individuals with weapons.

Fine but if launch orders went out from either side, how many missles would work as designed versus malfunctioning? Not very many. That's why so many are needed. More systems are needed than targets in order to compensate for system unreliability.

More air dropped nuclear bombs were needed than targets existed because of expected losses due to enemy air defenses. More subs were needed than targets because some subs might be destroyed by enemy action and some subs could be expected to be lost due to missles malfunctioning in the tube resulting in loss of sub (similar to the Kursk)

Using NASA as a metric, the space agency probably does no better than 50/50 at getting a satellite launch off on time. Unlike a minuteman sitting in a remote silo years on end, NASA missiles are of fresh manufacture and are attended to by swarms of engineers and technicians. All this for no better than a coins toss chance of launching on time.

[Ben Mugged]

The last metric I had before I retired from active duty was the Minuteman (systems have evolved since then) had a launch success probability of 97.83%. The missiles were randomly extracted from alert status and test launched out of Vandenberg. Not one failure in the last 10 years I was involved. Since the Minuteman program was upgraded, some older missiles were sold to private industry (Orbital Sciences) and have been used successfully for satellite launch for a lot of years. These systems are highly reliable and survivable.

Comparing NASA launches to military EWO launches is apples to oranges. NASA has to worry about space traffic, weather, plume, debris, and having people in the crash zone. Military launches under war conditions (EWO) have none of those restraints.

[dtrpscout]

TREASON!

[dtrpscout]

According to the teachings of ISLAM, if one’s father is a Muslim, then the child is a Muslim. If the child converts to another religion( (of from Sunni to Shiite), the child is a heretic, and is to be put to death.

[pepsionice]

Fallout starts to add up after a hundred detonations. You can cross off your milk supply for a while. Your garden production probably won’t be 100 percent safe. And beef production might be a serious issue for a number of reasons. Mankind on different parts of the globe would survive on....but your lifestyle changes for the next couple of decades.

[ballplayer]

At a Minimum another 2 and a Half years of this America hater. At the rate this Guy is Going there will be nothing left of this country by then.

[Old Student]

“According to the teachings of ISLAM, if one’s father is a Muslim, then the child is a Muslim. If the child converts to another religion( (of from Sunni to Shiite), the child is a heretic, and is to be put to death.”

And if his father was Shia, and he converts to Sunni, he still gets killed. Islam is a lose-lose religion, with both major and all the minor branches at war with each other. House of Peace, indeed.