Staggering: Obama to Cut Nukes by 80%

Rushlimbaugh.com ^ | February 15, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

[NYer]

RUSH: There are some things happening today that are downright scary. The regime, led by Barack Hussein Obama, is weighing options for reducing our US nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80% in the number of deployed warheads -- 80%. Folks, this is staggering. Meanwhile, the Iranians are nuking up. Iran announced today that they're gonna cut off oil to six countries that have opposed its nuclear program, and more importantly, Iran also announced that they have installed domestically made nuclear fuel rods in their Tehran reactor.

Now, if that's true, this is significant because the sanctions that are currently imposed on them are supposed to prevent them from getting the material that you need to make nuclear rods. And, also, if this is true, it puts Iran that much closer to being able to make a nuclear weapon. We're unilaterally disarming. We are not requiring the Russians to go along and, even if the Russians said they would match these reductions, they lie. That is the lesson of the Russians and nukes. What was our top moment? Our number of warheads peaked at 12,000 in the late eighties. And let me tell you something. That number of nuclear warheads is what helped us win the Cold War. That number of nuclear warheads sent a message to every other nation, particularly at that point in time, the Soviet Union, "You hit us, it doesn't matter. We've got enough left to wipe you out in retaliation." That many nuclear warheads was a deterrent.

So much is flashing back to me. You go back to the eighties and the seventies, the nuclear freeze movement, the peaceniks wanted to get rid of nukes, and there was an arms race going on. We were increasing our stockpile, as were the Russians. The numbers mattered only in terms of deterrent. We had to keep up, and we had to stay ahead. You build, for example, the B-2 bomber, hoping never to have to use it. The left has never understood this about military matters and defense. They never understood this about nukes. You build them so that you don't have to use them. That's the point. You don't build them because you want to. You don't build them because you can't wait to use them. You don't build them because you're warmongers. You build them so that you don't have to. It's what's behind practically every major weapon invention and manufacture.

The B-2 stealth bomber, you hope you never have to use it. Now, we have had to, obviously. But the hope is that the brute force and the ability to project power is enough to deter anybody from taking us on. It's a great strategy, it is how this stuff works, and now Barack Obama is reducing our stockpile unilaterally by 80%, back to 300 warheads. Now, you might say, "Well, that's good, Rush, it's making the world safer." It is not making the world safer. If the Russians still have 15,000 or 2,000, whatever the number is, folks, there's a balance of power here that has shifted away from us, and this -- I am here to tell you -- is by design.

The Associated Press is reporting that Obama could cut our nuclear weapons arsenal by 80%. That is just staggering. This would amount to unilateral disarmament. Three hundred nuclear weapons would take us back to levels not seen since 1950. If we cut our nuclear weapons down to 300, Russia will have five times, 1,550 nuclear warheads. If we reduce to 300, we will have fewer nuclear warheads than the ChiComs. The only thing you could say in response to this, "Well, Rush, we don't have anything to fear from the Russians or the Chinese or anybody in the Middle East." No, of course we don't. The last time we had 300 warheads was in the fifties and that's when we were making them as fast as our technology and materials would permit us to make 'em. We weren't stopping at 300. We kept going.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now reducing nuclear weapons to 300 warheads.

We dug up, ladies and gentlemen... Let me see where it is here. Yes, here it is: Obama's 1983 nuclear freeze article. The New York Times had a story on July 4th, 2009. "Obama's Youth Shaped His Nuclear-Free Vision." When you read this, it becomes painfully clear that Obama's thinking has not advanced one inch in the last 29 years. He is now implementing the pacifist, anti-nuke ideas that the anti-nuke, "pro-peace" movement had way back in the 1980s, back during the days of Ronaldus Magnus. "Obama's Youth Shaped His Nuclear-Free Vision -- In the depths of the Cold War, in 1983, a senior at Columbia University wrote in a campus newsmagazine, Sundial, about the vision of 'a nuclear free world.' He railed against discussions of 'first- versus second-strike capabilities' that 'suit the military-industrial interests' with their 'billion-dollar erector sets,' and agitated for the elimination of global arsenals holding tens of thousands of deadly warheads."

Don't tell me, "We've got a nice guy," Mr. Romney, "who's in over his head."

Don't tell me, Mr. Romney, as Mr. Romney's been saying, "He's a good man. He's just out of his league."

By far and away he's not out of his league. The people "out of their league" are in the Republican Party trying to deal with this, getting skunked at every turn.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
I need to correct myself on this nuclear warhead business. I erroneously stated at the beginning of the show that we peaked at 12,000 nuclear warheads. That was way wrong. In 1967, we peaked at 31,255 nuclear warheads. In 1989, we were down to 22,217 warheads. In 2010, we were at 5,113 nuclear warheads. And by 2017 we are scheduled to be at 1,500 warheads -- 1,550. It is that number Obama is suggesting be reduced to 300 warheads -- and before 2017. I had said we peaked at 12,000 warheads in the eighties, and I stand corrected. We had 31,000 warheads in 1967.

[CodeToad]

No, he would chicken out, hesitate, then do nothing. Thank God our nuclear response isn’t totally in his hands.

[Truth29]

"If we were attacked today with nuclear weapons, I wonder if Obama would launch a counter attack ?????????????"

I suspect he would be more likely to order a strike on those portions of our armed forces that refused to stand down in the face of the enemy.

[EEGator]

It’s deliberate. You can’t accidentally go wrong 100% of the time.

[himno hero]

and the converse.

In the meanwhile he is giving all the muslim nations hi tech secrets, technologies and money. This is both directly and indirectly. Muslims have already infiltrated every sensitive organization, technological institution, governmental organization and business in America. Then we have all the great gifts to the backwards muslim nations of technologies and cash.

Boy, I wonder what the upshot will be?

[navymom1]

A vote for Ron Paul is a direct slap in the face to the sacrifices my son has made for this country in both Iraq and in the Far East.

[glock rocks]

"Our enemies may be irrational, even outright insane, driven by nationalism, religion, ethnicity or ideology. They do not fear the United States for its diplomatic skills or the number of automobiles and software programs it produces. They respect only the firepower of our tanks, planes and helicopter gunships."

— Ronald Reagan

[Michael Barnes]

Its not staggering, the asshole said flat out he wanted to get rid of our nukes back in 2008. People are now surprised that he is keeping his marxist promises?

[Vinnie]

New START was signed on 8 April 2010 in Prague and entered into force on 5 February 2011.

Senate approved this, right?..Right?? /s

[LucianOfSamasota]

On 13 May, the agreement was submitted by U.S. President Barack Obama for ratification in the U.S. Senate. Ratification required 67 votes in favor (out of 100 Senators). On Tuesday, 16 September 2010 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 14–4 in favor of ratifying New START. The measure had support from three Senate Republicans: Richard Lugar of Indiana, Bob Corker of Tennessee, and Johnny Isakson of Georgia. Senator John Kerry and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have expressed optimism that a deal on ratification was near.

Republicans in the Senate generally deferred to Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a leading conservative on defense issues, who sought a strong commitment to modernize U.S. nuclear forces, and questioned whether there was time for ratification during the lame duck session, calling for an opening of the negotiation record before a vote is held. Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) joined Kyl in expressing skepticism over the timing of ratification,and Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) has expressed opposition.

Obama made New START ratification a priority during the 2010 post-election lame duck session of Congress, and Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN), the Democratic Chairman and senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, were leading supporters of the treaty.

On 22 December 2010, the U.S. Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification of the treaty, by a vote of 71 to 26 on the resolution or ratification. Thirteen Republican Senators crossed party lines to vote in favor of the resolution, along with all 56 Democratic senators and both Independent senators.

Obama signed documents completing the U.S. ratification process on 2 February 2011.

-Wikipedia

[NYer]

The destruction of this nation is proceeding at warp speed, and most of the citizens haven’t a clue. It’s as if a vast fog bank has descended on our land. The regime is wide awake and busy as can be, while the people slumber.

They're not slumbering. On the contrary, they are enjoying their government benefits. Consider the following:

Obama Thinks He Can Buy Enough Votes to Trump His Record and Continue His Mission to Weaken America February 15, 2012

In essence, Obama is banking on the votes of those who benefit from the give-away programs he has put in place.

[Carry_Okie]

Senate approved this, right?..Right?? /s

The Constitution specifies "two thirds of Senators PRESENT" (caps added). That means it takes only 34 Senators to ratify a treaty if there is a quorum.

Of course, pursuant to a treaty we never ratified, our Department of State specifies that "customary practice" is that a treaty needs only a signature of the President or an appointed representative in order to be effectively in force; IOW, it need not be ratified to be treated as law by our government.

Wanna know how all that happened?

[Talisker]

A vote for Ron Paul is a direct slap in the face to the sacrifices my son has made for this country in both Iraq and in the Far East.

Your statement is a direct slap to the truth, and a direct slap in the face of thousands of military people who support Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has NOT said he's against the military - he said he's against the use of the military AS POLICE. And he's pointed out that trying to do a job that they are Not trained for, is what is getting most of them killed.

So slap yourself, because there are a lot of dead US Military who got that way running around trying to play cop to a bunch of thugs, instead of destroying them or getting out.

Destroying them or getting out - that, VERBATIM, is Ron Paul's declared use of the military.

And anyone who doesn't agree with it, IMO, is slapping the face of every military person risking their lives RIGHT NOW who are forced to play footsie with a deadly enemy.

[American Dream 246]

To anyone who still think obama is stupid or in over his head - think again. This guy is doing a GREAT job to kill America for good. He is following his plan he was brought up to do and everything is working exactly how it was planned. And he KNOWS by now that nobody will stop him.

[doug from upland]

Cut by 80%, no missile defense, and we cannot get our own energy. He is not incompetent. He is destroying the country on purpose.

[DuncanWaring]

Obama is either a fool or ...

Maybe he's a fool, maybe he's not.

Doesn't matter.

His minders, the folks on the other end of the Blackberry pulling his strings, are very smart and evil to the very marrow of their bones.

They have been planning for this moment, the destruction of this country, for a century; they are not going to give up just because of some silly election.

[American Dream 246]

he were thrown out of office by the military

Really? The military? You mean the military who said PC is worth 15 death at Fort Hood and never used the word muslim? The military who is burning the Bible? And much more - the military who is following step by step what obama orders in what he is doing to his country and to our soldiers without complaining ever? That military??? Good luck!

[Free Vulcan]

Get ready those of you who live in on the West Coast. Don’t be surprised if you live under a Chinese flag in your lifetime.

[jersey117]

Does anyone even care? He is systematically deconstructing the country. At a very rapid pace. The media won’t report it. Former military brass won’t speak out on it. Republicans in congress are allowing it. Won’t even call a press conference to address it. What can we do about it?
All we do is hate on Romney, hate on Cain, hate on Perry, hate on Bachman. We are so destroying our chances to win the most important election of our time. All in our quest for the “perfect” conservative candidate who doesn’t even exist.

[ecomcon]

Exactly. Obama was easily identified as a stone cold Alinsky Marxist in his world view. He was elected anyway.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Absolutely deliberate. The sooner people get rid of the idea that he's an amateur, a buffoon or an idiot, the better. Stanley Ann's Baby believes he's a transcendental figure whose destiny is the destruction of western civilization and the ushering in of a new age. The one Crowley called The Age of Horus.

Pop culture is currently saturated with clues about what they intend to bring about. The shock and awe assault on Roman Catholicism is a big tell that they believe their time has come.