I was very surprised that New START did not generate more controversy. Ratified by the Senate in 2011, New START reduced deployed nuclear warheads by nearly 70% - from 5600 to 1600.
Hard to believe that in the 1960’s we had over 30,000.
The Pentagon needs to postpone their answer until after the election. Stall this idiot before he gets us all in a world war with nothing to fight it but good intentions.
He doesn’t give a damn about “a world without Nukes”, as long as he sees to it that America is neutered, he’ll be happy.
Obamalateral disarmament ping
Also, approximately 30 or so years ago the US signed a treaty with the Soviets to destroy all biological weapons. We faithfully complied and “verified” the Soviets compliance.
Later records show that they hid massive quantities of Bio weapons and continued to research and produce them in secret locations. Which is precisely what the Soviets and Chinese will do if we agree to eliminate or greatly reduce our nuclear weapons.
Even without reductions, their is a real danger that one of Obama’s minions could reveal to the Soviets the precise locations of our Trident subs allowing that whole leg of our triad to be destroyed, leaving the Russians with more than enough missiles to take out our remaining land based ICBMs with a small portion of their missiles. Leaving us totally defenseless with no means to retaliate. The fewer total warheads we have the more likely such a scenario is.
What is even more frightening is the idea we no longer have any real deterrence. Deterrence depends on a President willing to retaliate.
I am not convinced that Obama would retaliate after we were attacked with nuclear weapons. I can easily see him giving into Chinese or Soviet surrender demands on the basis of better Red than dead.
Obama wants to 'tempt' with weakness... it'll be transmitted to Vladimir...