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.

[bvw]

Wouldn’t this need Congressional approval?

Per the Constitution, the funding would require authorization. It is NOT cheap to decommission nukes.

BUT not ONE significant politician of either party seems to give a s--- about the Constitution in these insane years.

[Carry_Okie]

The usual suspects.

[sargon]

I’m pretty sure that if the US deployment was reduced to 20% of its current size, we’d still have plenty enough to destroy the planet a dozen times over...

[386wt]

It is that number Obama is suggesting be reduced to 300 warheads...

How soon we forget how the Cold War was won. We basically bankrupted the USSR because we out-built them with our nuclear weapons. That was the essence of winning that war without firing a shot.

This Obama srategy would shut down the rest of our Minuteman bases in Montana and the Dakotas.

I know about these things because I was a member 386th Strategic Missle Wing at Malmstrom AFB in 1962 we got all her missiles in the "green" during the Cuban Missle Crisis. We were under orders of JFK and Curtis LeMay to do that. That Wing is still there with newer generation warheads 50 years later in the very same silos.

Today I'll bet there isn't a poker player in the white house. JFK was the greatest poker player of that generation. Look what he used for chips!

[itsahoot]

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

He would have to first identify "them." He seems unable to figure out that Islam is at war with us and has been oficially after Beirut, unofficially for a little less than 2000 years. Unfortunately I suspect a majority of Christians can identify the enemy either.

Having said the Ron Paul is out to lunch, on everything except the Fed, which Hillary seems to be on the short list to take over, how cool is that?

[itsahoot]

That military??? Good luck!

Removed all reference to Jesus at the military schools, muzzled the Chaplains, can't say Jesus at a funeral....

Mark my words this fight over contraception is a tar baby, that has sharia written all over it.

[GraceG]

[ He won’t be satisfied until we’re 100% disarmed. ]

If he had his way we would be totally disarmed, not just the nukes but guns too, heaven help us if we get attacked we would have to fight “uphill” using rocks and illegally kept firearms to gather more firearms from the enemy to fight back an invading force.

In a way I would welcome a Nuclear disarmament of the USA, so we could use the hostile nation nuking us to create a mad max situation where liberals would be the first to kick the bucket.

But that would be too much scorched earth for anyone, it would be a “cleansing fire” but the price would be too damned high.

[itsahoot]

They each took an oath to protect and defend our once great nation.

Nope they take an Oath t defend the Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic, as do the people in office. They are doing neither at the moment.

[SandRat]

There are more than a few of us that will be heard yelling Pluck-Yew just as the English Archers of old did.

[GraceG]

[ 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. ]

Ron Paul really needs to Stress that he is for a strong military that is prescribed in the constitution and not one that has been perverted by “Progressive Nation Building”.

He is just not all that good at “getting the message out”, so most people don’t catch the nuance.

Nation Building is catastrophic when the culture is 180 degrees from the occupying force. In 1940-50’s Germany and Japan their cultures were on a similar level or only few decades behind ours (japan was modernizing culturally 1860-1930’s ) not several centuries or over a thousand behind like it is with the people in the middle east.

We expect to Nation Build like we did after WW-II in these hell holes, we come from the false supposition of “cultural relativism” when we really should have made a judgement call that were weren’t re-building a near modern European country and instead a country where barbarism is the soup de jour.

[Buchal]

Your son’s sacrifices are appreciated, but I have no confidence that this Administration is pursuing a strategy that makes those sacrifices sensible.

And having only 300 nuclear weapons puts America at risk in a way that far exceeds anything going on in the Mideast. It is our Republican leaders slapping us in the face by tolerating the traitors in this Administration, starting at the top.

I commend the following anti-Paul article to your attention (http://www.steynonline.com/4812/paul-the-parochial); it begins:

“Uncle Sam has now spent a decade running around the Hindu Kush building grade schools and shoveling taxpayer-funded Viagra to every elderly village headman with one too many child brides. According to the World Bank, the Western military/aid presence accounts for 97 percent of Afghanistan’s GDP. And, within a week of the West’s departure, it will be as if that 97 percent had never been there, and all that remains will be the same old 3 percent tribal dump of mullahs, warlords, poppy barons, and pederasts, all as charmingly unspoiled as if the U.S. and its allies had quit 48 hours after toppling the Taliban in 2001.

“It is two-thirds of a century since the alleged hyperpower last unambiguously won a war, and that ought to prompt a little serious consideration of the matter.”

[Dajjal]

obumpa

[Eaker]

Ron Paul

FURP!

[Fair Paul]

Next time I watch the movie Seven Days in May I'm going to root for Burt Lancaster's character.

[U-238]

I do not think that this will happen. This would emasculate our defenses severely. In light of Moscow’s and Bejing’s buildup and modernization of their nuclear forces. This also is a threat of Tehran’s quest for an ICBM missile. All of these are ideas that are floating around.

[Eaker]

Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!" -- Jim Robinson, 09/30/07

[Captain7seas]

“The Sec’y of Defense needs to ignore this proclamation, and to tell The Obastrad to pound sand”.

You need to do a little research on Leon Panetta who is most assuredly cheering this on.

[U-238]

I also have to add that every treaty we have signed with the Russians on nuclear arms and ABM defense has been broken by them.

[GOPJ]

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

Too bad we don't have a free press - if we did one of 'em could ask your question - ask rather than pull out their knee pads...

[U-238]

Secondly, the Chinese has never been included in any arms negotiation treaty.