Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Nuclear Deterrent in Danger
Heritage ^ | 3/21/12 | Michaela Bendikova

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 nation’s ultimate insurance policy.

Representative Mike Turner (R–OH), chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, recently introduced the Maintaining the President’s 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 expensive—and funded from the already overstretched Department of Defense’s budget—but 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.

Turner’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: danger; democrats; deterrent; nuclear; obama; us

1 posted on 03/21/2012 9:26:12 AM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


2 posted on 03/21/2012 9:27:08 AM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

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?


3 posted on 03/21/2012 9:41:55 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil; tx_eggman
What will it take for the Nation to realise the seriousness of the threat he presents?

That realization will only come with hindsight as our daughters and sons look over the smoking ruins of this once great nation heading for the re-education camps and wonder why we did not have the courage to protect it.
4 posted on 03/21/2012 9:44:47 AM PDT by SpinnerWebb (In 2012 you will awaken from your HOPEnosis and have no recollection of this... "Constitution")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SpinnerWebb

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.


5 posted on 03/21/2012 9:48:10 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

IF November rolls around as it has in the past.


6 posted on 03/21/2012 9:52:19 AM PDT by SpinnerWebb (In 2012 you will awaken from your HOPEnosis and have no recollection of this... "Constitution")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I never realized that when I watched “Seven Days in May,” I was rooting for the wrong side.


7 posted on 03/21/2012 9:52:19 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

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.


8 posted on 03/21/2012 9:52:19 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
"... the Administration reneged on its promise ..."

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?

9 posted on 03/21/2012 9:56:09 AM PDT by In Maryland ("Truth? We don't need no stinkin' truth!" - Official Motto of the Main Stream Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
It's just possible that we don't have any operable nuclear weapons left.

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.

10 posted on 03/21/2012 9:59:23 AM PDT by backwoods-engineer (I will vote against ANY presidential candidate who had non-citizen parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer
I'm struck by the irony that reporting that Malia is in Mexico with 25 Secret Service Agents is viewed as a security threat; while announcing to the world we intend to leave ourselves virtually defenseless is not!

Liberal logic - the ultimate oxymoron!

11 posted on 03/21/2012 10:04:12 AM PDT by In Maryland (Liberal logic - the ultimate oxymoron!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SpinnerWebb

Either way will provoke the same reaction.


12 posted on 03/21/2012 10:08:06 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
As of 2011, we have 1,944 operationally-deployed nuclear weapons (operational-deployed means it is sitting on an ICBM or otherwise immediately-available for use). As of 2007 estimated count of 5,736 active stockpile warheads (active stockpile means that it would work, but is not immediately deployable).

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.

13 posted on 03/21/2012 10:09:29 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

Source?

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.


14 posted on 03/21/2012 10:13:31 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Failing to fully fund the needs of the U.S. nuclear complex may not be the larger problem.

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?

15 posted on 03/21/2012 10:19:53 AM PDT by frog in a pot (Have the Republicans in office yet realized having a Marxist in the WH is a dangerous thing?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot

I think they have. These people stop at nothing.


16 posted on 03/21/2012 10:22:38 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil; PapaBear3625
Operational weapons?

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.

17 posted on 03/21/2012 11:01:46 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

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.


18 posted on 03/21/2012 11:05:41 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil; Ben Ficklin
Source?

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.

19 posted on 03/21/2012 11:28:43 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

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.


20 posted on 03/21/2012 11:31:56 AM PDT by soycd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

US Dept of State.

OK

Now, the Weapons Industry is under the Energy Department.

My opinion is that State Department may have a clue, but the reality of what is available and it’s condition is only known by the Department of Defense and the DOE subdivision that oversees the manufacture.

Dems are always anxious to give “State Secrets” to the ChiComs and to Ivan. Example: the W88 technology that Slick Willie somehow gave to the ChiComs.

Traitors are truly within the gates this time.


21 posted on 03/21/2012 11:48:25 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

The State Dept has the job of reporting our compliance with the arms treaty with the Russians. The numbers they give may or may not be fiction, but they are the official position of the US government


22 posted on 03/21/2012 1:55:23 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson