Posted on 07/13/2010 5:29:20 PM PDT by ezfindit
He should use them on North Korea and Iran but he would more likely use them on England and Israel.
Obama has such a inferiority complex as a black man he only feels comfortable as the weakling.
So what is our President smoking?
While allowing the Tali Ban to kill millions of Americans, he hopes.
Sorry! Posted that pic to the wrong thread. I’ll ask the mods to delete it.
That is all and good, but only relevant to the threat. What will Russia have at the time we have 3000? Right now they have equal numbers of strategic, but several times the number of tactical weapons which threaten our allies who we “protect” with our nuclear umbrella. Will Japan and South Korea continue to NOT produce their own weapons when the US is seen as having an inferior stockpile?
Somehow “Equality” in nuclear weapons doesn’t matter to Obama, but it may really matter to our allies.
So the relevant question is, “Are we short on nukes?”.
It really doesn’t need to be more complex than that. If we’re long, we disassemble them. If we need more, we build ‘em up. You don’t just leave these things lying around, if you don’t have a need for the number in inventory.
Have what you need. All else is quite expensive, and useless if they can’t be fielded/used.
Ping to #32 post (ie football)
Russia isn't. Our reduction will be part of a treaty, and remember, Obama didn't start this, Bush did, because it was obvious to Bush and Putin that neither side could afford to maintain a zillion weapons and delivery systems.
China's numbers are a tiny fraction of what the US and Russia will keep. Even a few Chinese ICBMs aimed at the West Coast are enough to deter us from anything really dumb, regardless of the fact that we will keep nearly 20 times what they have.
Dear Mr Barack Hussein Obama, Please lead by example and cut your personal security detail by half.
If it’s good enough for us little folk, it’s good enough for you.
Can we all say TREASON! FOR GOD SAKE
Deter US???
What HAVE you been smoking?
There is NO need to deter the US, since we are not an aggressor.
This is just common sense, but folks won't apply common sense.
I think that those who think that "zero" is a realistic or desireable goal for nuclear weapons are dead wrong. But I think that so long as you have a credible non-zero number, i.e. you can absolutely guarantee someone is going to take even a small number of hits with thermonuclear warheads, you have pretty close to enough. Some overkill is fine, some additional so that you are not disarmed after dealing with Iran and NK.
But think about it hard. If you wanted to make life really miserable for the US how many weapons would it take. Take out SF, LA, Dallas, Chicago, lower Manhattan, Silicon Valley - leave DC as a sick joke to have to deal with the fallout - and we are already pretty badly off. And that is 6 weapons. A few ports, a few oil refineries, and we are finished. We are not even up to an even dozen.
So the Chinese 100 are more than enough against us.
Like bailing out California?
President Palin... stroke of the pen... law of the land... this will never be put into place.
LLS
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.