So let me get this straight:
Russia continues to arm Iran and Syria, China continues to do business with America's enemies and threaten Taiwan, North Korea and Pakistan remain nuclear threats and Iran is about to develop nuclear weapons and Obama WANTS TO GIVE UP ALMOST ALL OF OUR NUKES?
Democrats really are America's biggest threat to national security.
Will Americans be safer after Obama gives up 80% of our nuclear weapons?
FanOreilly
2012/02/15 17:51:32
|
|
|||||
|
12 votes
|
|
13% | ||
|
83 votes
|
|
87% | ||
Well you can't say he didn't warn you.
Radical professor Barack Obama has simultaneously increased the number of wars the US is fighting despite running as the 'anti-war' candidate.
Notice he said that he will 'end' the war, not that he will 'win' the war.
Now to further weaken America's defenses, he plans to give up 80% of America's nuclear weapons.
Radical professor Barack Obama has simultaneously increased the number of wars the US is fighting despite running as the 'anti-war' candidate.
Notice he said that he will 'end' the war, not that he will 'win' the war.
Now to further weaken America's defenses, he plans to give up 80% of America's nuclear weapons.
"Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, was pressed Wednesday about The Associated Press report that the administration is weighing a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons.
Dempsey declined to comment on that figure. He said talks are ongoing in anticipation of negotiations with Russia."
The 80% reduction comes on top of the 'arms treaty' he signed with Russian in 2010. Remember the treaty that was supposed to get Russian to stop arming Iran and Syria?
Why 80%? To make sure we have less nuclear weapons than communist China.
Will Americans be safer after Obama gives up 80% of our nuclear weapons?
*This poll question has been reported to Obama's 'attackwatch' so you know it's good.*
The 80% reduction comes on top of the 'arms treaty' he signed with Russian in 2010. Remember the treaty that was supposed to get Russian to stop arming Iran and Syria?
Why 80%? To make sure we have less nuclear weapons than communist China.
Will Americans be safer after Obama gives up 80% of our nuclear weapons?
*This poll question has been reported to Obama's 'attackwatch' so you know it's good.*
Read More: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NUCLEAR_...
So profoundly misinformed.
((Their are enough nuclear weapons on earth to decimate this world hundreds of times over))
In the mid 80’s we had over 12,000; by 2003 we had reduced our stockpile to 5,000; enough to still maintain our sovereign status without any doubt.
A reduction to 300 would put that in jeopardy.
Why does everyone, have to read something into something that it isn’t. I don’t give a rat’s ass who is at the top, if they propose something that is stupid, I’m going to call them on it.
I can flip this around; do you agree with him simply because he’s Obama; where was your support for Bush when he reduced the number of nuclear weapons?
Yes 300 is one of three that he is considering; but he is CONSIDERING it. So which 300 would he keep, the B61 with a variable yield on lowest setting of 0.3KT; which is 6 times LESS powerful than the one we dropped on Hiroshima?
Please don’t over estimate the power of our nuclear weapons, currently the biggest, most powerful nuclear weapon we have is the B83 weighing in at 1.2MT, which is 57 times more powerful than Fat Man, which was dropped on Nagasaki. By comparison, Mt. Saint Helens 1980 eruption was 24MT which is 1142 times more powerful than Fat Man.
B) I didn’t advocate creation of new weapons; I said don’t cut what we have; so don’t go reading things into things that aren’t there.
C) I’m not right wing; I’m libertarian; and therefore stand against most right wing and left wing policies.
Am I against big budgets, yup, would I like to see our forces pulled out of everywhere; yup. But the military is also one of the things that is in the Constitution; it is our defense against those who wish to harm us; so do I want it scrapped; nope.
Play to your strengths! LOL.
Common sense check people:
If any war got to the point where we needed to deploy more than China's arsenal of 300 nuclear warheads... Mankind would be extinct!!! Think before you speak folks! Facepalm!
That is complete lunacy with no basis in reality. It would be suicide to start nuclear war.
"300 will not totally destroy China or any other rival power out there."
The point I was making, is that if a war started that involved hundreds of warheads being launched by multiple countries, it wouldn't matter who started with what, civilization would be setback in a major way! In other words, everyone loses!
Furthermore, Obama hasn't said that we are going down to 300 nukes. So, all things considered, this talk serves no purpose!
http://www.fas.org/programs/s...
But again, given the realities of nuclear stockpiles, the internationally understood results of a nuclear war, and the fact that Obama hasn't decided to shrink Americas arsenal, there really is no reason for alarm or fear mongering.
None of us really know what would happen to civilization if a nuclear exchange was to take place. But in your thoughts on this; I would like to remind you, that the really big nuclear weapons of the cold war, the 2+MT weapons, are already gone. Our biggest nuclear weapon is 1.2MT; with the vast majority of their yields coming in under 500KT. We even have several with variable yields, which will produce an explosion less powerful than the one on Hiroshima. By comparison, the Mt. Saint Helens 1980 eruption was 24MT.
Why would America's enemies want us to decrease the number of nukes?
You don't think the Chinese know nuclear weapons?
It's because you liberals at fools that prefer to be sodomized by our enemies than standing up like men of honor with your countrymen.
You are scum bag traitors that belong deported or in prison.
The 52 second clip at the top tells you what kind of IDIOT this ethnic word is.