Obama to unilaterally disarm the United States

Discussion in 'Politics' started by 377OHMS, Feb 14, 2012.

  1. 377OHMS


    Well, there goes our nuclear deterrent:


    This man is intent on looting American and "spreading the wealth around" via welfare, housing assistance, transporation assistance and free cell phones for those who produce nothing.

    I've never seen anything like this in my life and find myself hoping that America will take care of this problem in the way it has in the past. If he isn't sent back to Chicago next January this country is going to become a permanent welfare state.

    Reducing our arsenal by 80% is suicidal but it is consistent with Obama's stated desire to "bring American down a notch or two":

    US weighing steep nuclear arms cuts

    AP National Security Writer

    "WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.

    Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama's 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.

    No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to around 1,000 to 1,100, 700 to 800, or 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.

    The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.

    A level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons would take the U.S. back to levels not seen since 1950 when the nation was ramping up production in an arms race with the Soviet Union. The U.S. numbers peaked at above 12,000 in the late 1980s and first dropped below 5,000 in 2003.

    Obama has often cited his desire to seek lower levels of nuclear weapons, but specific options for a further round of cuts had been kept under wraps until the AP learned of the three options now on the table.

    A spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, Tommy Vietor, said Tuesday that the options developed by the Pentagon have not yet been presented to Obama.

    The Pentagon's press secretary, George Little, declined to comment on specific force level options because they are classified. He said Obama had asked the Pentagon to develop several "alternative approaches" to nuclear deterrence.

    The U.S. could make further weapons reductions on its own but is seen as more likely to propose a new round of arms negotiations with Russia, in which cuts in deployed weapons would be one element in a possible new treaty between the former Cold War adversaries.

    Stephen Young, senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which favors nuclear arms reductions, said Tuesday, "The administration is absolutely correct to look at deep cuts like this. The United States does not rely on nuclear weapons as a central part of our security."

    Even small proposed cuts are likely to draw heavy criticism from Republicans who have argued that a smaller nuclear force would weaken the U.S. at a time when Russia, China and others are strengthening their nuclear capabilities. They also argue that shrinking the American arsenal would undermine the credibility of the nuclear "umbrella" that the United States provides for allies such as Japan, South Korea and Turkey, who might otherwise build their own nuclear forces.

    The administration last year began considering a range of possible future reductions below the levels agreed in the New START treaty with Russia that took effect one year ago. Options are expected to be presented to Obama soon. The force levels he settles on will form the basis of a new strategic nuclear war plan to be produced by the Pentagon.

    The U.S. already is on track to reduce to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads by 2018, as required by New START. As of last Sept. 1, the United States had 1,790 warheads and Russia had 1,566, according to treaty-mandated reports by each. The treaty does not bar either country from cutting below 1,550 on their own.

    Those who favor additional cuts argue that nuclear weapons have no role in major security threats of the 21st century, such as terrorism. A 2010 nuclear policy review by the Pentagon said the U.S. nuclear arsenal also is "poorly suited" to deal with challenges posed by "unfriendly regimes seeking nuclear weapons" - an apparent reference to Iran.

    It's unclear what calculus went into each of the three options now under consideration at the White House.

    The notion of a 300-weapon arsenal is featured prominently in a paper written for the Pentagon by a RAND National Defense Project Institute analyst last October, in the early stages of the administration's review of nuclear requirements. The author, Paul K. Davis, wrote that he was not advocating any particular course of action but sought to provide an analytic guide for how policymakers could think about the implications of various levels of nuclear reductions.

    Davis wrote that an arsenal of 300 weapons might be considered adequate for deterrence purposes if that force level was part of a treaty with sound anti-cheating provisions; if the U.S. deployed additional non-nuclear weapons with global reach, and if the U.S. had "hypothetically excellent," if limited, defenses against long- and medium-range nuclear missiles.

    In 2010, three Air Force analysts wrote in Strategic Studies Quarterly, an Air Force publication, that the U.S. could get by with as few as 311 deployed nuclear weapons, and that it didn't matter whether Russia followed suit with its own cuts.

    New U.S. cuts could open the prospect for a historic reshaping of the American nuclear arsenal, which for decades has stood on three legs: submarine-launched ballistic missiles, ground-based ballistic missiles and weapons launched from big bombers like the B-52 and the stealthy B-2. The traditional rationale for this "triad" of weaponry is that it is essential to surviving any nuclear exchange.

    As recently as last month the administration said it was keeping the triad intact under current plans, while also hinting at future cuts to the force. In the 2013 defense budget submitted to Congress on Monday, the administration proposed a two-year delay in the development of a new generation of ballistic missile submarines that carry nuclear weapons. That will save an estimated $4.3 billion over five years.

    In congressional testimony last November, the Pentagon's point man on nuclear policy, James N. Miller, declined to say what options for force reductions the administration was considering. Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's strategic forces subcommittee, unsuccessfully pressed Miller for key details about his policy review. As recently as last month Turner said in an interview that he feared the administration was bent on cutting the force.

    In his written testimony at a Nov. 2 hearing chaired by Turner, Miller made it clear that the administration was making a fundamental reassessment of nuclear weapons requirements. In unusually stark terms he said the critical question at hand was "what to do" if a nuclear-armed state or non-state entity could not be deterred from launching an attack.

    "In effect, we are asking: what are the guiding concepts for employing nuclear weapons to deter adversaries of the United States, and what are the guiding concepts for ending a nuclear conflict on the best possible terms if one has started?" he said.

    Nuclear stockpile numbers are closely guarded secrets in most states that possess them, but private nuclear policy experts say no countries other than the U.S. and Russia are thought to have more than 300. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that France has about 300, China about 240, Britain about 225, and Israel, India and Pakistan roughly 100 each.

    Since taking office Obama has put heavy emphasis on reducing the role and number of nuclear weapons as part of a broader strategy for limiting the global spread of nuclear arms technology and containing the threat of nuclear terrorism. That strategy is being put to the test most urgently by Iran's suspected pursuit of a nuclear bomb."
  2. Ricter


    Where has Obama stated that?
  3. Max E.

    Max E.

    I am all for this if its true, and i agree with Obama disarming, there is only so many times over that we can blow the world up..... Its not going to make a damn bit of difference if each side has 1500 nukes, or if we each only have 300 nukes, if we ever get into a nuclear war with Russia, 600 nukes between both countries is more than enough to destroy the entire world.... This is a step in the right direction.

    Whether We have 1500 nukes each, or 300 nukes each, we are all toast in either scenario if we get into a pissing contest with Russia using nukes.....

  4. "Obama's stated desire to "bring American down a notch or two":"

    I'd love to see this quote and the context it was in.

    I suspect like most right-wing rhetoric, that once examined loses it's credibility.

    As far as the reduction of the nuclear arsenal... also once examined is not the white flag of surrender that you so hysterically maintain it is.
  5. 377OHMS


    Max its about being able to respond *after* being attacked. If your nuke sites are all destroyed in a preemptive attack you are left with no way to retaliate. Retaliation is the basis for deterrent. There is no "mutual" in mutually assured destruction if your capabilities can be destroyed in the first volley.

    We need an overwhelming superiority in numbers and capabilities in order to deter attack. We must also assume that we would be attacked by both Russia and China simultaneously and neither of them is going to cut back on anything.

    MAD has worked since around 1947. That isn't a bad track record and there is no reason we should alter that balance.
  6. Wow,I agree :eek:
  7. Max E.

    Max E.

    Think about this for a second, Russia is not going to launch a few nukes, to take out the nuclear sites they know of in the states, and wait for a response, because they know the second a nuke touches down here, our entire nuclear arsenal is going back their way. If Russia launches a single nuke, then the entire russian nuclear arsenal is coming with it, because they arent going to allow a response, so if 1 goes off we are all fucked anyways.

    If it is going to happen, there isnt going to be a systematic attack on one sides nuclear sites, its going to be everything going at once, because both sides know that once 1 goes out the entire enemies nuclear arsenal is going to be coming back at them regardless. 300 Nukes per side is more than enough to blow earth up many times over, there is no point in having 1500 each, its overkill. In my opinion It is definitely a step in the right direction, for both sides to agree to get rid of most of them.

  8. Nice one Maxi. :) .
  9. As long as there are nuclear weapons, the United States needs to maintain an effective nuclear triad because a significant part of our arsenal could conceivably be taken out by a first strike and I doubt the numbers Obama's proposing would be sufficient for that. And oh BTW, what if Russia and China team up? So it's not prudent to gamble with this. And what would Obama spend the savings on anyway? More welfare?
  10. Max E.

    Max E.

    You dont seem to get the point, if Russia or China was to attempt the first strike, on our nuclear arsenal, they know damn well that we are going to start firing nukes, so they wouldnt do it unless they mean business, meaning they wouldnt do it if they were not about to use nukes, in which case we are all dead anyways, saying that we need to maintain an arsenal of 1500 nukes to be safe is insane, we could blow the world up 15 times over with that many nukes, having 1500 nukes doesnt make us any safer than having 300 nukes......unless you want to see a bigger firework show as we all get annihilated....

    #10     Feb 15, 2012