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

Skip to comments.

Obama To Eliminate 40 Percent of US Nuclear Weapons
CDS ^ | 7/13/2010 | B. Chrysostom

Posted on 07/13/2010 5:29:20 PM PDT by ezfindit

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last
To: TChris
What HAVE you been smoking?

I would ask the same question. What have you been smoking.

First, if you read about some of the nutcases who were admirals and generals in the Pentagon in the 50's and 60's, it is probably only because the Soviets had a stockpile that we did not end up in a nuclear war.

More significantly, however, I am trying to get you to think sensibly and logically about nuclear weapons. One of the ways to think about what it would take to deter someone else is to imagine what it would take to deter us, which means asking such questions and what price would be too high for us to consider some expedition against some other country in the world. The answer is that it does not take very many.

Now that you know that we could be deterred with a dozen thermonuclear warheads on ICBMs, you can think sensibly about sensible numbers and not imagine that our defense requires bizarre numbers like 28,395 carefully targeted systems.

But I did not realize I was dealing with an idiot who cannot think beyond the end of his ah er nose.

41 posted on 07/13/2010 6:59:33 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ezfindit

40% is just a beginning, that is if we last that long. Suicide.


42 posted on 07/13/2010 7:02:57 PM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian
Like bailing out California?

Maybe we could declare California part of the new "Western Block" a strategic buffer zone between us and them. Set up a new iron curtain on the east side of the left coast, running from San Diego up to Vancouver. We would keep AK, however.

43 posted on 07/13/2010 7:04:02 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
First, if you read about some of the nutcases who were admirals and generals in the Pentagon in the 50's and 60's, it is probably only because the Soviets had a stockpile that we did not end up in a nuclear war.

Document this claim, if you can. Show me evidence of admirals and/or generals who would have launched nuclear weapons on their own without "deterrence" from the USSR.

Your claim is absurd.

I believe you've mistaken FR for a hippie commune.

More significantly, however, I am trying to get you to think sensibly and logically about nuclear weapons. One of the ways to think about what it would take to deter someone else is to imagine what it would take to deter us, which means asking such questions and what price would be too high for us to consider some expedition against some other country in the world. The answer is that it does not take very many.

That's all well and good, but beside the point. The ones who need the deterrence are those who are likely aggressors and likely to start a war.

Can you point out ANY war at ANY time which was started by unprovoked action from the USA? EVER?

You need to figure out whose side you're on, bub.

America's still the Good Guys.

44 posted on 07/13/2010 7:09:17 PM PDT by TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: TChris

Well said Chris! AMEN!


45 posted on 07/13/2010 7:12:49 PM PDT by ezfindit (ConservativeDatingSite.com - The Right Place for Conservative Singles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TChris
You are quite pathetic, actually. You obviously have self-worth issues and need to spew your propaganda, not to convince the rest of us of something, but to delude yourself into something.

Of course the way to think about how to deter someone else starts with imagining what it might take to deter yourself, but you are such an intellectually ignorant slob that it is not worth trying to explain this to you.

46 posted on 07/13/2010 7:29:56 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ezfindit

Hell, why don’t you just pack them up and ship them to Iran?


47 posted on 07/13/2010 7:35:00 PM PDT by Doomonyou (Let them eat Lead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
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.

We would be bad off, but they'd hammer us with more. A few more hits in the SF Bay Area to wipe out Silicon Valley and industrial capacity in the East Bay. San Diego would be included.

However, if they wanted to hurt us just a couple hits at the Sacramento area would screw our waterways that feed water to the entire state, and there goes our food supply.

48 posted on 07/13/2010 8:23:47 PM PDT by roadcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: roadcat

Exactly. But the children here want to play with nuclear weapons and imagine that keeping around a gazillion of them, at enormous cost and the risk that we will lose a couple one of these days, will make them feel better. I want enough to do the job and no more.


49 posted on 07/14/2010 5:52:53 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: TChris
an you point out ANY war at ANY time which was started by unprovoked action from the USA? EVER?

You are not this ignorant of our history, surely.

50 posted on 07/14/2010 5:55:05 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ezfindit

OK, let’s insert some rational thought into the mix.

What percentage of the weapons are delivered by systems either obsolete or no longer in existence?

What percentage can be delivered by systems under design?

What percentage are suffering from age and reliability?

What percentage were designed and built to strike targets that are no longer targets?

What is the cost effectiveness of maintaining weapons that have a less than 10 or even 20 % probability of being used or are near obsolete back up for more recent or improved designs?

On and on and on.


51 posted on 07/14/2010 6:03:21 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... The winds of war are freshening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: musicman

That is pretty good!


52 posted on 07/14/2010 11:03:43 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
Muttley Laugh

Fake But Accurate

53 posted on 07/14/2010 12:04:42 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson; TChris
”an you point out ANY war at ANY time which was started by unprovoked action from the USA? EVER?”

"You are not this ignorant of our history, surely. "

I would like to hear the answer myself. You sound very scholarly, please tell us one.

54 posted on 07/15/2010 2:05:35 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* 'I love you guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last

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