Posted on 07/13/2010 4:20:50 PM PDT by george76
Edited on 07/13/2010 4:30:23 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
OK, 40% because it would be too obvious if he got rid of all defenses at once.
Uh oh. We’re going to need those nukes to defend our Muslim Socialist Workers’ Paradise against the capitalist pigs who want to steal the fruits of our labor.
Barack Hussein Obama wants to eliminate American nuclear weapons.
Many years ago on 60 Minutes (yes I know) they interviewed a nuclear weapons designer.
Paraphrased, she said “I’m often asked what good comes from having these weapons? We don’t use them so what’s the point of having them?
Her reply was “We use them everyday. They sit there on a shelf and scare people.”
Sublime.
Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm or know that his conduct is substantially certain to cause that result. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.
The list, ping
And to think that he could possibly be removed if the BC issue was pushed more powerfully. But then again, many people think that his continued occupancy of the WH is more important than the future of this nation.
ooooh so correct...ha ha!
Do things like this even get a thirty second mention from the MSM, or are Freepers and a few like minded souls the only ones who know?
Also, is this really a unilateral decision for the POTUS alone? We do have two other branches of government, plus some Joint Chiefs. Do any of them get a say so?
A terrible thing when you have become so corrupt as a nation you elect a virtual traitor as your leader.. Im talking about Bill Clintoon... Obama is much worse..
Those folks, many of them, I think, have a buy in to some part of the federal leviathan that may be questionable if we are as a nation to re-commit to understanding the national government’s charter as the Framers meant it to be understood.
That is sublime and also pithy. As well as true. Do you remember his name? I’ve worked with a few of them.
FUBO.
oh my Dear Lord.
Great work, BL
3,500 nuclear weapons could still get the job done I think. Imagine the consequences of two major cities of your opponents getting destroyed. Lets say Moscow and St. Petersburg and Shanghai and Beijing. Drop a 300KT weapon in the center of each of them and those countries would be reeling for quite a long time.
assuming all are able to lauch. Many could be destroyed in a first strike, some fail to lauch (i.e. see challenger explosion. rockets are not 100%), and the enemy doesn’t develop an effective anti-missile defense. The idea behind thousands of kill vehicles is that some would get through. Reduce the number and you increase the risk someone might try something.
Heck, 350 operationally deployed would probably be more than enough.
40 today 40 more tomorrow and then 20 to finish the job.
LOL... I have that identical thought.... several times a day.
Sorry, don't know the name. To the best of my recollection, this interview was in the late eighties or early nineties.
It was a female with short hair who looked to be under forty years of age.
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.