More utopian ideas... that will never work.



So are we going to start by leading by example?

Of course! We'll just tell everyone our nukes were lost in a boating accident.

I'm sure China, North Korea, India and Pakistan share his Utopian view.

Not to mention Iran.

HaHaHa. That's awesome!

+1

He is a gifted panderer. Nothing more. Nothing less. Barry Obama, I am sure, heard John Lennon singing "Imagine" while he was uttering this tripe.

The nuclear genie is so far out of the bottle that nothing, ever, could put it back in.

My take is that these European fanatics are giving Barry star status because he is the United State's first black president, which takes the onus off of them to ever promote a black person to their highest levels of government.

Just as the USA swore off of chemical weapons 80 years ago or so, we still have them, and dust them off ready for use during every conflict since World War I. The same will remain with nuclear weapons — "We swear off nuclear weapons … but we will keep a few thousand around just because."

Well, who needs nuclear wepons when everybody is equal? Nobody will have anything that anybody else wants and we'll all be living in the stone age again!

The US will always have nukes. Nothing wrong with other countries NOT having them.

Wars today are fought politically. Each "side" is very involved with the other "sides" government and has allies in the other government and in the population. We don't want to wipe a population off the earth, as in the Middle Ages.

For example, in Irag we only fought Saddam. We were bringing "freedom" to everyone else. So, our nukes were kind of useless, because they would hurt our "friends". We really don't have an enemy we could use strategic nukes against anymore. And our accuracy makes tactical nukes unnecessary.

But nukes are great for a terrorists, who like to kill everyone.


Obama is simply fighting the political war, in Eurpoe. Unfortunately, the far right commentators today are so jaded they cannot even think logically. Obama's best allies in America are now our right wingers, not the left.

I read an article recently that Obama won't allow the Pentagon to go forward with a modernization of our nuclear arsenal. Since most of the nuclear warheads were built back in the '70s and 80's, their continued effectiveness, if ever needed, will be questionable in the coming years.

In essence, we will be unilaterally disarming ourselves.

We don't need to "modernize" nukes, which were designed for the cold war and old fashioned delivery systems. We'll never use that stuff.

What we need to modernize is the accomodations and care for our soldiers and veterens. We need "morale pills" for the guys who go to Iraq with a great atitude and come back with the same attitude as the Viet Nam vets.

There are many areas we, as a nation, should divert additional resources to. But your notion not to modernize the nuclear weapons arsenal in order to fund "morale pills" is a little odd.

I guess I would rather take the recommendations from the US Defense Secretary on this issue.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/ ... dChannel=0


U.S. must update nuclear arsenal as rivals are: Gates
Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:08pm EDT

Email | Print |
Share
| Reprints | Single Page
[-] Text [+]

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned on Tuesday that America's aging nuclear weapons stockpile faces a bleak future of decline just as rival nations including Russia and China are modernizing their nuclear arsenals.

Nearly two decades after the end of the Cold War, Gates said the U.S. nuclear program is suffering from an exodus of qualified designers and technicians, the stockpile has not been modernized and no weapons have been tested since 1992.

"Let me first say very clearly that our weapons are safe, secure and reliable. The problem is the long-term prognosis -- which I would characterize as bleak," Gates said in a speech to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington think tank.

Gates used the warning to urge Congress to fund a modernization effort by the Pentagon and the Energy Department to create new weapons designs that he said could be used to create a safer and more secure stockpile without abandoning the 16-year-old unilateral U.S. ban on new weapons tests.

Russia has begun to rely increasingly on its nuclear force by developing new land- and sea-based missiles while maintaining the ability to manufacture new warheads, Gates told his audience.

He said China has also expanded the number of missiles and pursued new land, sea and air systems that can deliver nuclear warheads.

"Currently, the United States is the only declared nuclear power that is neither modernizing its nuclear arsenal nor has the capability to produce a new nuclear warhead," Gates said.

"To be blunt, there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program."

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has taken a series of weapons systems including the Peacekeeper ballistic missile out of service and plans to reduce the U.S. nuclear warhead stockpile by two-thirds to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2010 under an agreement with Moscow.

The credibility of U.S. nuclear deterrence became a source of special concern for Gates after revelations that an Air Force bomber mistakenly flew six weapons across the country last year and that the Air Force inadvertently sent nuclear weapons fuses to Taiwan.

Those revelations prompted the U.S. defense chief to take the unprecedented step of firing the Air Force's top civilian official and military officer earlier this year.

'WE MUST HAVE A DETERRENT'

Gates said a credible U.S. nuclear deterrent was not only necessary to prevent attacks on the United States with nuclear arms or other weapons of mass destruction but also to prevent friendly nations that now rely on the U.S. nuclear umbrella from pursuing their own nuclear programs.

"There is no way to ignore efforts by rogue states such as North Korea and Iran to develop and deploy nuclear weapons, or Russian or Chinese strategic modernization programs," Gates said.

"As long as other states have or seek nuclear weapons -- and potentially can threaten us, our allies and our friends, then we must have a deterrent," he added.

"Try as we might, and hope as we will, the power of nuclear weapons and their strategic impact is a genie that cannot be put back in the bottle -- at least for a very long time."

Gates told the audience that he was not advocating renewed U.S. testing of nuclear weapons but rather a program sought by the Pentagon and Energy Department that would allow for safe and reliable new weapons designs without the need for actual underground testing.

He said Congress has refused to fund the program because of concern among lawmakers that the plan -- known as the Reliable Replacement Warhead program -- would lower the threshold for using the weapons.

"Let me be clear: The program we propose is not about new capabilities -- suitcase bombs or bunker-busters or tactical nukes. It is about safety, security and reliability. It is about the future credibility of our strategic deterrent," Gates said.

"We must take steps to transform from an aging Cold War nuclear weapons complex that is too large and too expensive, to a smaller, less costly, but modern enterprise that can meet our nation's nuclear security needs for the future."

The Defense Secretary wants money for everything defense, naturally. The government has to pick and choose.

We've rather obviously moved beyond cold war weapons of mass destruction, because our enemies have sort of reformatted. They don't gather where we can carpet bomb them anymore. This has been going on since tthe end of WWII and was pretty well completed with the fall of the Soviet Union. We need obviously new nukes, not the old ones.

It is ludicrous to use something like this as a criticism of Obama. Unfortunately, this kind of thing is now par for the loyal opposition, so he's probably guaranteed a second term. If you already hate him, any criticism sounds good. But to anyone else it means only that he must be OK if this kind of thing is the best the conservatives have.

Most preople around the world are positive on Obama, and his message, in rather stark contrast to GW. If conservatives keep smugly waiting for his adminisration to fail instead of contributing positively to work at hand there will no checks or balances, and the wrong liberals will run amuck, I'm afraid.

It can be used as a criticism of Obama. Politically, he committed himself to nuclear disarmament. So he can't go forward and support any sort of nuclear "modernization", i.e, newer, safer, smaller weapons without looking like a flip-flopper. He essentially painted himself into a corner(for political gain), before understanding the nuances of maintaining an effective nuclear deterrent.

And yes, most people are positive on Obama, but his words, and thus, by their actions will dictate if he will be successful bringing the world together. But in the end, being a well liked person will not help Obama confront the challenges of the world....look at how effective the response about the N. Korean missile launch was. Obama couldn't bring together an effective response from the UN to this provocation, no matter how well liked he is.

Don't get me wrong, I would rather see the country succeed than Obama fail. But his immense popularity is allowing him to spend political capital on Utopian ideals that in the end will bankrupt the country....but that's another debate....

Most people in the world are apparently positive on civilian disarmament and some form of socialism, too. Right and wrong isn't a beauty pageant.