Skip to comments.U.S. Nuclear Deterrent in Danger
Posted on 03/21/2012 9:26:07 AM PDT by Nachum
After President Obama released his fiscal year 2013 budget, it became clear that the Administration reneged on its promise to fully fund the needs of the U.S. nuclear complex to the Senate pursuant to its advice and consent to the New Strategic Arms Control Treaty (New START). Thankfully, though, some in Congress are well aware of the value that U.S. nuclear weapons provide as the nations ultimate insurance policy.
Representative Mike Turner (ROH), chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, recently introduced the Maintaining the Presidents Commitment to our Nuclear Deterrent and National Security Act of 2012 (H.R. 4178). The bill addresses some of the key issues related to the funding for the nuclear weapons complex and links reductions of U.S. nuclear arsenal to proper appropriations for the nuclear weapons complex.
The Administration is reportedly moving to reduce the arsenal of operationally deployed nuclear warheads to as few as 300. Not only would these reductions be expensiveand funded from the already overstretched Department of Defenses budgetbut they are not based on a sound assessment of the international environment. The Administration is operating on the premise that if the U.S. reduces its nuclear arsenal, other countries will follow its lead. This is not going to happen, because countries have their own reasons why they acquire nuclear weapons that are not primarily derived from the number of U.S. weapons.
Turners bill would prevent these unilateral reductions by means of a limitation that nuclear force reductions should be implemented in such a way as to assure Russia does not deploy nuclear force levels superior to those of the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.heritage.org ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
The current arsenal is thought to be at least 2-3 thousand weapons. The idea that we only need 300 is treasonous.
He fully intends to destroy the US. He has from the very beginning.
What will it take for the Nation to realise the seriousness of the threat he presents?
Guess we shall see in November if you are correct.
This is the last stand.
If Obozo is re-elected, we may as well begin another battle.
IF November rolls around as it has in the past.
I never realized that when I watched “Seven Days in May,” I was rooting for the wrong side.
We are no longer in a bi-polar US/Soviet world. Our nuclear arsenal needs to be sufficient to deter Russia AND China AND Iran AND North Korea (plus other nuclear powers, declared and undeclared). If anything, we need to cancel START and restore our nukes to pre-START levels.
What a surprise! I think I'm gonna have a heart attack and die from the shock of that surprise! (Stolen from Disney's Aladdin)
Seriously, how can even his allies trust a word that comes out of his mouth?
And even if we did, do you think 0Muslim would use them in ANY scenario? I don't. If we got nuked (and high-altitude burst would be WAY worse than any city getting nuked), 0bumbler would think we deserved it.
I'm sorry, I don't believe anything that comes out of this administration. If they said the earth was still turning, I'd have to go out at sunrise to verify it.
Liberal logic - the ultimate oxymoron!
Either way will provoke the same reaction.
Per the second link, at the end of the Cold War in 1991 the United States had an active arsenal of some 23,000 weapons of 26 major types. This means that even if we were hit and most of our capability destroyed, we could mount a response that would destroy the attacker, even if the response consisted of mounting nukes on anything that would fly, and pilots volunteering for one-way missions.
There is a difference in weapons and operational weapons. They require maintenance and upgrades.
The weapons consist of many types.
Deployed? Yes, the number I suggested does not mention those outside the U.S.
The real number of operational weapons? Officially unknown.
Should we not be talking about 1960's bomb throwers inside the wire? Does anyone believe that with a Marxist admin serving as CinC our nation's highest security systems have not been examined and likely compromised?
I think they have. These people stop at nothing.
Do you mean tactical weapons?
Back in the early days, tactical nukes were investigated but never developed. Instead, nukes were used only as strategic weapons.
So when Papa Bear talks about Iran and nukes he is talking about a tactical nuke weapon and we know that Bush and the NeoCons tried to get Congress to appropriate the money to study the feasibility of converting existing nuke warheads into nuke bunker busters. Congress refused by a wide margin.
And speaking of Congress, it is hard to point the finger at Obama because START was/is a treaty approved by a 2/3 senate vote. So if you go back to Dec 2010 and the Senate vote on START, those GOPers who voted against START are the NeoCons and those GOPers who voted for START are the Realists.
And ever since that vote, the NeoCons have been trying to undermine the treaty.
Operational weapons? = available for immediate use.
Tactical weapons? = smaller special purpose weapons
I did not use the term tactical, unless I repeated a statement by someone else.
Follow the links. The first link is to US Dept of State, which I assume is fairly definitive. The second, where they define the difference between the various statuses, is nuclearweaponarchive.org. I don't know how accurate the second link is.
Our effeminate CIC is blowing all our budget on vote buying, welfare stashes for holders people and dead end energy
ignorance. The USA has never been so weak and in danger as it is now.
I don’t know what the trigger will be but it’s fast approaching.