E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Getty Images photo
A Trident II nuclear missile is shown in an undated file photo.
Senior Obama administration officials have agreed that the number of nuclear warheads the U.S. military deploys could be cut by at least a third without harming national security, according to sources involved in the deliberations.
They said the officials’ consensus agreement, not yet announced, opens the door to billions of dollars in military savings that might ease the federal deficit. It might also improve prospects for a new arms deal with Russia before the president leaves office, the sources said, but is likely to draw fire from conservatives, if previous debate on the issue is any guide.
The results of the internal review are reflected in a draft of a classified decision directive prepared for Obama’s signature that guides how U.S. nuclear weapons should be targeted against potential foes, according to four sources with direct knowledge of it. The sources, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to a reporter about the review, described the president as fully on board, but said he has not signed the document.
The document directs the first detailed Pentagon revisions in U.S. targeting since 2009, when the military’s nuclear war planners last took account of a substantial shrinkage -- roughly by half from 2000 to 2008 -- in the total number of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal. It makes clear that an even smaller nuclear force can still meet all defense requirements.
Although the document offers various options for Obama, his top advisers reached their consensus position last year, after a review that included the State Department, the Defense Department, the National Security Council, the intelligence community, the U.S. Strategic Command, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the office of Vice President Joseph Biden, according to the sources.
Several said the results were not disclosed at the time partly because of political concerns that any resulting controversy might rob Obama of popular votes in the November election. Some Republican lawmakers have said they oppose cutting the U.S. arsenal out of concern that it could diminish America’s standing in the world.
The new policy directive, which would formally implement a revised nuclear policy Obama adopted in 2010, endorses the use of a smaller U.S. arsenal to deter attacks or protect American interests by targeting fewer, but more important, military or political sites in Russia, China and several other countries. This can be accomplished by 1,000-1,100 warheads, the sources said, instead of the 1,550 allowed under an existing arms treaty.
The 2010 policy called for reducing the role of nuclear weapons, arguing that they are “poorly suited to address the challenges posed by suicidal terrorists and unfriendly regimes seeking nuclear weapons.” But many critics have charged that not much of the policy has been implemented. Obama himself even joked in a video message to the Jan. 26 annual dinner of Washington’s exclusive Alfalfa Club, that he could not recall why he won his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize [the Oslo committee attributed it partly to his stimulation of “disarmament and arms control negotiations”].
With the election behind him and a new national security team selected, Obama is finally prepared to send this new guidance to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and to open a new dialogue with Russia about corresponding reductions in deployed weapons beyond those called for in a 2011 treaty, according to two senior U.S. officials involved in the deliberations.
“It is all done,” said one. “We did so much work on it that there is no interest in going back and taking another look at it.” The second official said completion of the new directive would become public in coming weeks, when Obama may mention the issue in his State of the Union address on Feb. 12, or in another speech specifically dedicated to the subject, similar to the April 2009 Prague address in which he promised to “take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons.”
Arms talks now being explored
While the draft directive opens the door to scrapping a substantial portion of the U.S. arsenal, it does not order those reductions immediately or suggest they be undertaken unilaterally, the officials said. Instead, the administration’s ambition is to negotiate an addendum of sorts to its 2010 New Start treaty with Russia, in the form of a legally binding agreement or an informal understanding. Officials said the latter path could be chosen if gaining the assent of two-thirds of the Senate to a treaty is not possible.
Preliminary discussions about this ambition occurred in Munich on Feb. 2 between Vice President Joe Biden and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and additional talks are slated in Moscow this month with acting undersecretary of state Rose Gottemoeller and White House national security adviser Thomas Donilon. Obama “believes that there’s room to explore the potential for continued reductions, and that, of course, the best way to do so is in a discussion with Russia,” deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said on Jan. 31.
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment on Feb. 6 on the draft directive.
The New Start treaty limits each side to deploying no more than 1,550 strategic nuclear weapons by 2018, but uses a counting rule that pretends strategic bombers carry only a single warhead, instead of up to 20. So the actual arsenals after the treaty takes effect are likely to be closer to 1,900, a number that Obama’s advisers now think is too high.
New Start also imposes no limits on nuclear weapons in each country that are held in storage or considered of “tactical” or short-range use -- a number estimated by independent experts as roughly 2,700 in the United States and 2,680 in Russia. Under the new deal envisioned by the administration, Russia and the United States would agree not only to cut deployed warhead levels below 1,550 to around 1,000 to 1,100 but also -- for the first time -- begin to constrain the size of these additional categories.
Several officials said that as a result, the total number of nuclear warheads could shrink to less than 3,500 and perhaps as low as 2,500, or a bit more than half the present U.S. arsenal, without harming security or requiring a major reconfiguration of existing missiles or bombers.
A much steeper reduction, to around 500 total warheads, was debated within the administration last year, but rejected, the officials said. Known as the “deterrence only” plan, it would have aimed U.S. warheads at a narrower range of targets related to the enemy’s economic capacity and no longer emphasized striking the enemy’s leadership and weaponry in the first wave of an attack.
Nuclear weapons experts have long considered the latter “warfighting” goal destabilizing because it arouses fears among all the combatants of a decapitating, preemptive strike that could obstruct a significant retaliation, but it has been a salient feature of the U.S. nuclear policy for half a century. China, in contrast, has adopted a “deterrence-only” strategy, keeping only a minimal arsenal of missiles aimed partly at targets in or near large cities.
Some officials at the State Department, the NSC staff, and Biden’s staff urged consideration of the smaller arsenal and new targeting policy, officials said. But “a small brake” was applied by the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, who worried that making such a major policy change was too risky at a moment of upheaval in conventional military strategy, and would create too much uncertainty among allies.
Obama, who followed the deliberations intermittently, “decided we did not need to do deterrence-only targeting now,” but did not rule it out, one of the sources with knowledge of the discussions said.
Air Force Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, who as head of the Global Strike Command oversees the operations of bombers and land-based missiles capable of carrying more than a thousand nuclear warheads to foreign targets, said at a breakfast with reporters on Feb. 6 that if asked, “can you go below 1500” treaty-accountable weapons, his response is, “Yeah, I think there is some headroom in there.” But he warned that shrinking the force to well below 1,000 would require “major structural changes in how we do this business.”
Additional cuts would save billions of dollars
The financial savings from even the modest reduction now being contemplated could be substantial, according to officials and independent experts. Already, to comply with New Start, the Pentagon has been pulling warheads from land-based missiles and making plans to decommission some of the missiles themselves; it is also planning to reduce the number of missile tubes aboard its Trident submarines.
By pushing the arsenal size even lower, it could close perhaps two of its three land-based missile wings and cut at least two of the 12 new strategic submarines it now plans to build – saving $6 billion to $8 billion for each one. Eliminating a single wing of 150 missiles would save roughly $360 million a year, or $3 billion over a decade, according to Tom Collina, research director at the Arms Control Association, a nonprofit research group in Washington. Modernization of the land-based missiles might also be deferred, bringing additional savings.
Russia, meanwhile, has been phasing out three older missile types that loomed large during Cold War tensions – the SS-18, the SS-19, and the SS-25 – and is replacing them with a more modern missile, the SS-27, in three forms. It is also planning to build a costly, larger missile, capable of carrying multiple warheads. Pentagon officials are not alarmed by that possibility, but say that a new arms deal could give Russia reason to scale back its own spending.
“The Russian Federation … would not be able to achieve a militarily significant advantage by any plausible expansion of its strategic nuclear forces, even in a cheating or breakout scenario” because it cannot destroy U.S. missile-carrying submarines at sea, the Defense Department said in a May 2012 classified report to Congress, partially declassified and released last month to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).
Related: Hagel's nuclear abolition endorsement spurs GOP questions on deterrence
Three participants in the targeting policy review said Russia nonetheless remains the sole U.S. target that still requires potential use of a large number of nuclear warheads to achieve damage that military planners deem adequate, even though Obama famously said last September at the Democratic National Convention that “you don't call Russia our number one enemy — not al-Qaeda, Russia — (laughter) — unless you're still stuck in a Cold War mind warp.”
U.S. nuclear targets include China, North Korea, and Iran, officials have said. But the list of predictable enemies has been steadily shrinking: Iraq was once on the list – as recently as 1997, the Defense Department studied radioactive fallout distribution patterns from a potential U.S. attack there – but it now poses no threats, and Syria – another perennial listee – is in the midst of imploding and unable even to muster a response to Israel’s recent bombing of an arms factory in its capital.
Russian arms reductions taken to date make U.S. targeting revisions feasible now, according to Hans Kristensen, a nuclear arms expert at FAS. A decade ago, the U.S. military was targeting 660 Russian missile silos with multiple warheads, he said; now, the number of such silos is less than half that, and in a decade, it is unlikely to exceed 230. Several officials also pointed out that Russia currently fields a smaller and weaker conventional military force than it once did, also allowing U.S. targeting to be scaled back.
Obama’s new appointees are on board
Key members of Obama’s new national security team are on board with the reduction strategy.
“There's talk of going down to a lower number,” Secretary of State John F. Kerry said during his confirmation hearing on Jan. 24. “I think, personally, it's possible to get there if you have commensurate levels of -- of inspections, verification, guarantees about the capacity of your nuclear stockpile program, et cetera.”
Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel drew fire from Republicans at his Jan. 31 confirmation hearing for signing a report last summer that said current stockpiles “vastly exceed what is needed to satisfy reasonable requirements of deterrence” and that nuclear weapons are arguably “more a part of the problem than any solution.” An appropriately modernized force, the Global Zero report said, would consist of just 900 total strategic weapons on each side, not 5000, and get rid of land-based missiles subject to accidental or unauthorized launch.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) told Hagel that cuts of that magnitude would “create instability, rather than confidence and stability; create uncertainty in the world among our allies and our potential adversaries.” He said the current U.S. arsenal projects “an image of solidity and -- and steadfastness” to citizens around the globe.
Hagel responded at the hearing that the report simply provided illustrative scenarios, not recommendations. But he affirmed the report’s conclusion that “we have to look at” the value and cost of continuing to keep land-based missiles and made no promise to build all 12 new missile-carrying submarines sought by the Navy.
The United States is not the only nuclear weapons state considering a retrenchment. A senior British treasury official told the London Guardian several weeks ago that given fiscal pressures in London, the country needs a wide debate “over the approach we take to nuclear deterrence” and should consider scaling back either its purchase or deployment of costly new nuclear missile-carrying submarines. Michael Portillo, the defense minister under Conservative Prime Minister John Major in the 1990s, told the Financial Times last month that Britain maintained its arsenal “partly for industrial and employment reasons, and mainly for prestige.” He called it “a tremendous waste of money.”
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is among those urging a major shift. In a speech last month in California, he called for all nuclear-armed states to “reconsider their national nuclear posture,” and said the United States and Russia had a special obligation to undertake deeper cuts. “Nuclear disarmament is off-track,” he said. “Delay comes with a high price tag. The longer we procrastinate, the greater the risk that these weapons will be used, will proliferate or be acquired by terrorists.”
Some senior U.S. officials are skeptical that Russian president Vladimir Putin would agree to a new treaty, because his government claims to depend more heavily than Americans on nuclear arms for security; others worry that Republican opposition in the Senate may obstruct ratification of any new treaty. But there remains high interest, officials said, in at least exploring a new joint, lower limit.
The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit, independent investigative news outlet. For more of its stories on this topic go to publicintegrity.org.
More from Open Channel:
- EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans
- After ethics complaint, Sen. Menendez pays $58,500 for flights to Dominican Republic
- Exclusive: Your employer may share your salary, and Equifax might sell that data
Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Get rid of as many as possible.
Leaner ... Meaner ... & Better
I agree but why tell,
Its sad we have this duel of the parties, one has to always snitch on the other. otherwise no would care the wiser and we'd save a boat load of money.
Keep them all
I agree. Does a country need nuclear weapons that can destroy the world 20 times over.
Why? We can destroy the earth several times over!!!
Another step in disarming and socializing America.
See comment below...
Larry-367607
As the article notes warheads decreased by half under Bush but I'm sure the right will try to paint any reduction by Obama as selling out the country.
Uh oh... if Obama is considering reducing our nuclear arsenal, this may impact someone's second amendment rights to have an ICBM in their back yard.
usa1967-
Yes... the socialism the GOP style. Let's buy 2 billion bombers (defense contractors provide to the republican re-election campaigns), and $400 toilet seats while our roads are crumbling.
Keep as many as possible. Will need them in a war against China someday you fools.
Send some express to Iran........
Dump the excess nuclear warheads on the Martians. Then we will have more space to update, create, and then store better ones.
We need to cut defense budget by at least 50% - which would only take it down to pre 9/11 level. We are wasting precious resources on NOTHING OF VALUE!
Max^108
We do need to reduce our deficit spending and require our allies to start paying for world security. I don't know about anyone else, but I am tired of us borrowing more money from China and paying for the world's freedom in American lives.
Nah.. let's exterminate the lower class in US and Europe then we can have nice roads, missiles and a balanced budget.
You know, if we're going to get rid of a bunch of nuclear warheads, then why not give North Korea a good fireworks show. They made that video about nuking NYC, so let's show they what they would be in for. We can park a few subs off of their shore and shoot off a hundred missles letting them explode in space at night above their skies. We could keep it daylight there all night long. That'd give them something to think about.
First take away high power rifle from the public (disarming), then reduce our nuclear weapon (deterrence). There are too many crazy people and regimes out there that wish us harm. The more weapons on the hands of the public, the harder it is for anyone to threaten us. More nuclear weapons, means less concentration of weapons, any enemy will have to do their homework to find them. The Government has a responsibility to keep us safe, anything short of that is like living in la-la-land. A world without nuclear weapon is a pipe dream, since there is always someone that wants to do us harm. Gee- didn't North Korea dream of nuking New York City via a video release? We should not fool ourselves.
G2020,
North Korea can dream all they want. They couldn't even make the video, they lifted the images from an American video game. Even with the reduced warhead count, it is sufficient to deal with North Korea, but we'd never nuke them ourselves, too close to China. But I don't doubt China would do it themselves, they don't seem to be happy about their raving neighbor.
Anyone who thinks getting rid of ANY weapons in today's world is foolish. All of this talk that we can destroy the earth 20 times over is nonsense. In a first strike another nuclear nation could take out a large number of our weapons; then how would we respond? No one wants a nuclear war and the best way to deter that is to make sure an enemy can NEVER win one against us.
The Romans had a saying "If you want peace, prepare for war."
It was true then and it is true today despite all the wishful thinking of the 60s peacenicks now running the government.
One thing to note, no matter what the article sounds like, they're not talking about dismantling these warheads completely. They're talking about taking them off of active missiles and bombs that need to be serviced and maintained and putting them into storage with the other 10,000 or so warheads we have stored away underground in North Dakota, Montana and other locations.
We have been funding the Russian army by buying there nukes for years. They ran out of money to maintain there stockpile. Each nuclear sub has enough to destroy 80% of the population of Russia. We still have enough to destroy all the land on earth six time by my calculations. Plus nuke are obsolete, because the same explosion can be created with fuel air bomb. Which are clean as far as radiation is concerned.
This is fine. We will still have more then enough to destroy who ever we want. All part of needed and commonsense reductions that the DOD should embrace and look into. Like the Khan says above, my guess is to most will just be store and taken off active warheads. I imagine maybe some of the older designs might get fully scrapped but otherwise that is all this will be. Besides land base missiles are not nearly as effective as subs, since you never know where the subs are. But eitherway still more then enough to destroy the world a few times over, and that doesn't include any of our allies that have their stockpiles too. Anyone saying this will make us vulnerable is an idiot. Just another case of corporate welfare (both sides do it) from the government. Upkeeping outdated or uneeded equipment and/or ordering new equipment that is not needed. Our defense budget is seriously bloated and that is why, good ol lobbyist and backroom palm greasing. It needs to be trimmed back and can be reasonably done so without hurting us defense wise. Our military should be lean and mean with proper understanding of when and where updates are needed and done so wisely. I will say though we can spend billions on new weapons and not blink but can't properly fund the VA and take care of returning troops? (Among other failings and underfunded areas we see in the US) It's even pick and choose for the military too, only worry about things that get the traitors in DC their cut. Defense budget is just one more area of many that needs trimmed to reduce government spending.
It is time
Sunk cost - the money is already spent. The weapons are here and they have been paid for. The cost to implement and monitor a disarmament program will outweigh any benefit we will get from the disarmament.
This makes no sense, it's a "feel good" idea which will only be expensive and in the end accomplish nothing. Let's spend this time, money, and energy elsewhere.
Assuming this actually saves money in the long-term and we don't cripple our ability to respond to extreme threats if needed, I support it.
As to saving money, it's hard to imagine it won't save money eventually - although I expect it to cost money initially since something has to be done with those warheads.
As to responding to threats, as long as we've got >1k in warheads and their location is reasonably well hidden (ex: subs), I don't see a problem.
Some here mentioned countries like N. Korea...my take on them is, you can never have enough firepower to really deter people that are truly not afraid to die... I think Iran will also fall into this category once they get nuclear bombs. For these countries we need to learn to work with them and the countries they align with (ex: China) in such a way that they don't want to launch a nuclear strike. I'm not saying we should do whatever they want, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking they won't strike us for fear of retaliation (especially a religious country like Iran - that thinks dying will just lead to a better life).
This is NEWS ?
Time to take a look at Mr. Obama's college thesis: "World reduction of nuclear arms"
Wait a minute....that would be flawed since "rogue Nations" could care less.
Another "issue" for Mr. Obama to use in his proposed "Sequestration spending cuts" since he has t
his articlepublic opinion to support him.What would be the impact if we stopped giving wasted foriegn aid to other countries, especially terrorist ones?
And, if they refuse to pay what we think they should, then what? We carry THE leading role in security because it is in our best interests as well as our allies. Although it may not seem that way, the period since WWII has been relatively peaceful, in large part because we've been the dominant power. Our huge military and economy also give us unprecedented diplomatic power.
The original construction expense is a sunk cost. However, nuclear arms (and missiles) don't just sit there until they're ready to be used. They must be maintained or there's no certainty that they will function. And, without that certainty, they are useless. And, since money already spent is a sunk cost, the only thing that is relevant is future costs. If reducing the arms stockpile can save money while maintaining sufficient deterrence, we should do it. But, of course, that assumes that the remaining arms level is sufficient.
Well, in one sense, if rogue nations don't care, our level of nuclear arms is irrelevant unless we're going to make a first strike.
Just so long as they're used responsibly I don't see a problem with nuclear weapons. I know this will get me in trouble with hard line Second AMendmenters but I think at minimum there should be a six month training course required and they should never be detonated after consuming alcoholic beverages.
I guess when you stock pile enough nukes to destroy the world 4 or 5 times over, getting rid of a few isn't really going to hurt.
We use air launch, sub launch, and intercontinental ballistic missiles for our nuclear deterrence. The number of warheads we have are frankly not necessary when one weapon packs over 1 million tons of dynamite power. And our delivery systems have always been superior to Russia's. Our MIRVed capabilities - multiple rockets with for multiple targets on one warhead - are better as well. For those who believe we are somehow giving up our defenses by reducing our arsenal, put it this way: do you really need a stick of dynamite to blow up an ant hill? That's overly simplistic, but you get the point.
gizmowiz 1.9
If we need to use that many nuclear weapons against china there won't be a world to live in afterwards.....you fool! Do you have any idea what a nuclear weapon actually is?
The khan 1.15
I know you're kidding, but you do know if you did that California would be uninhabitable for 1,000 years. The other side of the Rockies would get roasted as well.
Derek 1.18
You are quite wrong. We do have enough to wipe out the world 20 times over and first strike by anybody will not reduce our ability to turn the earth into a 100% wasteland. Nuclear weapons are not just big bombs. They are essentially unusable as weapons. The damage done at the end of WWII was by two bombs that could today almost fit in a suitcase. There are still places in Nagasaki that are radioactive.
MMMMM
No, there is considerable cost in maintaining the nuclear weapons. The Tritium needed for thermonuclear ignition needs to be changed periodically and there are other issues. We would save considerable money if we dismantled or mothballed these weapons.
OK now get rid of this guy who is selling stuff.
lets, see...
did you know, who sold out the nuclear technology to Iran?
here, for your memory.....an american:
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?
yes indeed,
its nice to do some deep, deep digging,
into who made tons of money,
selling out this country to the enemies.
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?iran_general_topic_areas=us_force_against_iran_nuclear&timeline=us_plans_to_use_military_force_against_iran
. right under our noses.
Barry and Ferro - future maintenance cost argument is not valid. They are not talking about disposing of the entire stockpile, so maintenance needs, crews, etc. will still remain. Those costs are not going away just because the arsenal is being reduced.
Again the cost of implementing, monitoring, and properly disposing of a portion of our arsenal will outweigh any benefit we will get (namely, a few high fives from the international community). This is a political stunt, there is no pressing need for this reform, and that time/money/energy is better spent elsewhere.
As the article notes warheads decreased by half under Bush but I'm sure the right will try to paint any reduction by Obama as selling out the country.
That isn't the only way obama is selling out the country.
Partially the military is sitting idly sucking up all the tax dollars. There should be financial responsibility in the military also by cutting their excesses.
I don't know, i am a libertarian and while i understand the need for nukes, i don't understand the need to be able to kill everyone in the world 6 times over
And Brendan that is why you can write what you just wrote freely.....
Because clearly if we could only kill every human on earth 5 times he'd be speaking Russian now.
I'm an independent, and I feel the same way. Overall, I think we should be going through the defense department budget with a fine tooth comb and looking for ways to save money - just like we should be doing for entitlements and discretionary spending. Both parties need to stop having sacred cows...everything needs to be on the table for discussion.
Interesting note...I was listening to Hannity last night (I bounce between NPR and Fox on the way home most nights), and he had a Republican senator on that was also advocating looking for ways to reduce the military budget. It was pretty funny because Hannity was trying to get him to say the military budget should not be put under the same scrutiny as the rest of the budget, but the senator kept disagreeing and saying it likely had waste/inefficiencies, and when found, those items need to be addressed. He also cited Coburn's (another Rep. senator) comments about finding about $7 Billion in military waste that could easily be removed without harming our national security - he used that as a small example of what he thought we should do with the entire military budget.
Hopefully this is a sign the GOP is starting to change it's stance on military spending.
Iran has squandered who knows how many billlions of dollars trying to develop nuclear weapons; we should simply get rid of our excess stockpile by sellling it to Iran. THey'd have what they've always wanted and we'd save American tax dolllars. This is an even bettter idea than the fundraising invasion of Iraq I came uip with about ten years ago while I was working for Dick Cheney.
Maybe the right wing will celebrate these spending cuts to balance the budget and applaud Obama's leadership as he tries to lead to a world free of nuclear weapons......
Just kidding....I'm sure the right wing will say Obama is putting America at risk and we are then sure to be hit by a nuclear bomb from Iran.
The U.S. isn't the "world". Because getting rid of nukes is not something the other countries are envisioning.
Getting rid of nukes is like telling democrats they need to get rid of entitlements. It will never happen.
As a member of the right, I will not say that Obama is selling us out because of this article. I do not know all the facts, and neither does anybody else here, so I will accept the premise that the number can be reduced by 1/3 as fact. Great.
As someone above mentioned, why say it out loud? If the goal is also to get other nations....China...Russia to reduce their numbers, why start out weakening your position by saying that you will reduce by a third. Any agreement will require further reductions, otherwise, the other side will state that we haven't given up anything.
Otherwise, great. We eliminate waste (if being able to destroy civilisation several times over isn't a waste, I don't know what is) and save money without jeopardizing security.
USA 1967- really? why don't we just ban the military all together and just keep police officers with night sticks only. Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea are adding more nukes in their arsenal. It's all good. We should be more civilized and take their threat lightly. Russia and China will keep their nuclear weapons to overrun our allies and USA with threats and better leverage over everyone so we comform to their communist mentality.
if the world was free of nuclear weapons. World war three would be in our near future. Nuclear weapons have prevented unknown amount of suffering and war. Only a complete fool would lower our war making ability below or equal to what our enemies can wage. This must be what Obama was whispering about to the Russian President, that vhe would have more flexibility to disarm america after the election. He has now nominated a secretary of defense that would like to see a nuclear free world. Fools they have forgotten the ravages of war across the world. Not saying that there cannot be some changes or modifications, meaning improvements to our defense, but who can trust Obama and Hagel when they both say they would like to see a nuclear free world?
It might be a bit of a help (in billions of dollars saved) in reducing and balancing the budget, but this alone will not be the sole factor that's going to balance our trillions of dollars in debt. That's to say, that the savings ((((( would go ))))) directly into reducing the debt/deficit?? and not be spent instead buying more bon bons. That's what i would be afraid would happen, if this president got his hands on all this extra money. He'd find a way to spend it.
Sfox,
You should watch the anime, "Tank Police", if nukes can stop war, just think what they could do for crime.
There are many ways of seeing this and they will not all be considered here: First there is the savings to this country in terms of the all mighty dollar. Just like it cost less to operate a economy car than a diesel truck, it cost less to maintain less of of a nuclear arsenal.....Period..... 2nd this is just another step in the true "Obama Agenda" to not only take away private ownership of firearms, but in disarming this country and reducing our ability to defend ourselves. 3rd this will not make the world safer, but in the long run make it more vulnerable to the "bully countries" like North Korea and Iran because eventually the United States of America will no longer serve as a deterrent to their aggressive ways since we will no longer be able to do so due to our reduced military abilities. 4th soon (when our military is so small and private U.S. citizens are totally disarmed, this country will be vulnerable to invasion because we will simply not have the abilty to defend ourselves much less help our allies. 5th Obama is being smart and helping to get rid of waste and lead us toward a balanced budget while still maintaining the ability of our military to do it's job. 6th our federal government will (by some miracle) change overnight and no longer find creative ways to waste the surplus money and will actually use the money wisely although I seriously doubt this will happen in the near future!
I am sure there are many more considerations to be taken into account but I put these out there for people to digest and consider before they willingly and totally trust the safety of this country to Obama and his hand picked bunch of Chicago political thieves. It is my belief that when it comes to certain unpopular things that Obama wants to accomplish, he is treating America like the proverbial frog in boiling water. For those of you not familiar with this it goes something like this: Put a frog in a pot of boiling water and it will simply jump out to avoid being boiled to death. However if you put that same frog in a pot of cool water and then slowly heat the water to a boil, it will stay in the pot and boil to death. Likewise Obama knows if he tries to kill our 2nd Amendment right all at once he may well have a revolt on his hands and any attempt like this will fail totally. Also if he tries to immediately destroy our military ability to defend this country, that attempt will be doomed to failure. However if he chips away and the 2nd Amendment one item at a time, and gets laws passed that make it easier to track who owns what firearm and where they live, when the time comes to deprive Americans of private gun ownership in the name of public safety, it will be easier for the government to find the guns. With the military he can continue to reduce the size a little at a time until the day comes when it is no longer capable of defending this country and do so in the name of saving money and making us appear to be more friendly and less threatening, and the majority of Americans will think it to be a good thing.
For me and my way of thinking, I AM NO FROG Mr. President so please remember that.
Absolutely correct. Nuclear weapons are the reason why we have experienced no major wars since 1945. Vietnam and Iraq were minor dustups compared to the horrific world wars of the early 20th century. Conventional weapons are the real killers.
"I know not what weapons world war 3 will be fought, but world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.
Albert Einstein
All are the same threats we faced when Bush cut the number of warheads in half. When you have many times the number of warheads needed to destroy any country on earth maybe you have too many.
Yet if nuclear war broke out just once every thing you posted would sound silly. If a major nuclear war broke out more would probably die in one stroke than died in all past wars combined.
Ernie
Your blind hatred has made you blind. Your assessment that Obama intends to weaken this country and all that other crap just reduces your credibility to zero. If this were a disagreement on what's best for the country by two people with different methods to achieve that you would be worth talking to, but when you come up with this infantile conspiracy theory, you prove that you're opinion is not worth considering.
And yet I wasted minutes typing this......stupid me!
Larry-367607 Yes the number of warheads was cut under Bush and I think the number could be cut further as long as they do not put restrictions on future development of better weapons. That has been the biggest problem with many past attempts at arms reduction. I would also like to see a limit on the total mega-tonnage of the arsenal.
Very enlightened post. It is about modernization. You can bet the Chinese will.
Double D: Have to disagree with that. Mega-tonnage isn't the weight of the bomb but the explosive effect. You kind of contradict yourself saying you want us to build better nukes but limit mega-tonnage. When you limit the numbers of warheads we still have the advantage because our weapons will be much more advanced. When you limit it by destruction power it would allow low technology countries the ability to have far more warheads with lower yields then us. That would lead to cockyness on their part if they thought they had more even if an illusion.
They will beat their weapons into plow-shares.
Just another instance where the Socialist is weakening OUR COUNTRY, after he completes the dismantling of THE CONSTITUTION, look into the edxecutive orders he has signed, especially the FAA act, in it is the authorization to use drones over the country, the purchasing of hollow point ammunition for Homeland Security(but hey have been to distributed to internal agencies, not those on the borders !) The early days of Nazi Germany.
Which administration started the Department of Homeland Security? You know, the Dept that you liken to Nazi Germany.
Which administration reduced our nuclear arsenal by half from 2000-2008?
Hey Larry! You're right. We have one right here.
Ed Grace: The only use of drones Obama has requested for domestic use is monitoring our borders. You right wingers bash him for not doing enough to keep out illegals then bash him for doing more. There are thousands of requests to use drones nation wide by law enforcement of both parties the courts will decide how far they can go. It's amazing that anything that occurs in this country even at the local level is seen as Obama's fault. I wonder what's different about him?
There is no doubt that the President who wants to “fundamentally transform our nation” will stop at nothing to advance his radical anti-liberty agenda.
It has become clear that Barack Obama has but little regard for the moral, spiritual, and founding principles upon which our nation and its culture were established.
Instead, our President misuses his bully pulpit to advance homosexuality, abortion, contraception, abortifacients, insurmountable debt (which the Bible clearly speaks against), and now gun control – all at the expense of unalienable rights endowed to us by God and codified in our Constitution.
As a result, many basic human rights are now being openly subverted. This abuse has become so intolerable that the right to life of the preborn is not only brushed aside, but those who morally object to the killing of these babies are being forced to pay for their deaths!
Falling ever deeper into the “Culture of Death.”
Bishop DiMarzio, in a recent column entitled “Deeper into the Culture of Death,” asserts that President Obama, as the first president of African-American decent, should be among the most outspoken adversaries of abortion – knowing, as he surely must, that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, always wanted to use the organization to control the births of unwanted Black babies who she felt were inferior human beings.
That’s right – Margaret Sanger was an outspoken eugenicist caught up in the same “master race” insanity that later fully expressed itself in the Third Reich. Her maniacal intent was to “purify” the population of undesirable genetic strains, including Black Americans.
Sanger’s damnable heritage in our culture today are those so-called “clinics” operated by Planned Parenthood, which to this day target minority members of our population, and with taxpayer support is the largest single abortion provider in the country.
Here’s how the Bishop phrased his disappointment in the Obama presidency…
“He [Obama] has chosen to use the bully pulpit not to call upon us all to be nobler and to embrace each child, regardless of origins and circumstances; rather, he has been a proponent of an expediency that is shameful and criminal in the eyes of Almighty God.
The forces of death press on from every side in contemporary American culture. It is clear there is an assault on the people of faith in our country… In my view, those who voted for President Obama bear the responsibility for a step deeper in the culture of death. Under the cover of women’s issues, we now see an assault on religious freedom and personal conscience.
I would have hoped that the first African-American president of the United States would have stood on the side of freedom for all. Instead, he stands on the side of political expediency.”
Sadly, Barack Obama knows exactly what he’s doing.
In order to advance his radical agenda, President Obama knows that he must systematically undermine the rights of the citizenry while simultaneously making the population beholden to the government – slaves of the system, if you will.
That is Statism, pure and simple. And its proponents know they must silence those who oppose their escalating power-grabs.
That is precisely what “liberal progressives” are doing. Right now, there is an overt effort to undermine our First and Second Amendment Rights. Rights once guaranteed by our Constitution are being rapidly dismantled.
@ Larry, We bash him? Does his (DOING MORE) concerning illegal immigration also consist of allowing amnesty for 800,000+ here illegally to begin with???? That's a good job and DOING MORE in your eyes Right??? DOING MORE IN YOUR VIEW IS wanting to grant another 11 million in too. So, tell me, what has he done to STOP illegal immigration? I know, DOING MORE---this is going to help out the American Middle Class Taxpayer ?? Bashing him for DOING NOTHING but in the long and short run beating up the Middle Class EVEN MORE---WHY-- Guess who ends up ALWAYS paying for it.
AND ----Please, dont tell me that that was done "JUST" on a temporary basis. NOTHING this government does is ever temporary, but it does end up costing you more money in the long run, ALWAYS. Besides, they were and are here illegally TO BEGIN WITH!! His fault---- Who are we suppose to blame, Bush? Sorry, but your guy has had 4 years and counting, it's his turn, that's what he cant face.
Mike7: You complain that Obama is restricting your right to restrict other peoples rights? Obama isn't advancing an agenda by allowing gays to live as they choose or women to do as they wish with their bodies he's allowing them to exercise their rights. You're the one trying to force your beliefs on others not him. Qouting the bible and the constitution in one sentence is interesting. Ever hear of the seperation of church and state? The bible may speak against homosexuality but doesn't extend you any right to oppress them nor any right to oppress women due to your beliefs. The constitution denies you any right to use religion to oppress anyone. Or do you simply disregard it except when defending your guns?
As for the debt Bush drove our debt from 5.7 trillion to 12.1 trillion. Despite the right trying to paint the 2009 budget as Obama's it was passed in October 2008 with a deficit of 1.2 trillion dollars bringing total debt under Bush's budgets to 12.1 trillion. Bush cut tax revenue 400 billion a year immediately reversing Clintons surplus to a 400 billion a year deficit. His 100 billion drug plan and 2 wars account for the rest.
Obama has only created one major program as president, Obamacare which is fully funded. All other spending that adds to the debt are paying the same bills that Bush paid even though Obama had 500 billion less tax revenue from taxes due to the Bush meltdown. The talk of welfare and food stamp growth under Obama is nonsense. The CBO projected massive increases in both these programs in 2008 who ever became president due to the meltdown and loss of 8 million jobs.
There you go, Larry m'boy, trying to insert race into the discussion. There are MANY things different about this president, sorry you're so shallow that you can't see past his race. (Everyone knows what your last sentence implied.)
I actually think Obama is a better president than Bush was (Bush's attacks on constitutional rights and freedoms, but that's another discussion entirely). He did lose my full support when he caved in to the insurance companies on the "public option" under the ACA, and I have never agreed with EVERYTHING he says/does, just as I don't agree with everything any other politician does.
However, President Obama really hasn't been criticized any more harshly than previous presidents. There were plenty of insults thrown at president Bush (actually, both of them), including by myself (and the mouth-piece of the left, Bill Maher, all these years later still disrespects the Bushes to the point of being a bully). I will agree that racism may be the cause of the increase in death-threats against president Obama, but EVERY president has to expect, and accept, criticism and disagreement from a free society. I'm sure president Obama is mature enough to understand that, but you left-leaning types seem to equate political criticism with racism.
If black people want to become part of mainstream politics (the office of the president is not a niche office, like being a member of the "black congressional caucus," it is as mainstream as a political office can get) then black people must learn to accept criticism from white people the way white people are expected to accept criticism from everyone else. Just because someone disagrees with a black person doesn't mean they're racist.
It does seem like the "left wing," generally speaking, are race-baiters. And that is equally as bad as the "racism" you think you are fighting against.
Obama increased border patrols and agents and increased illegals captured at the border and deported far beyond Bush's numbers. He granted temporary amnesty to children of illegals who had been here since they were babies and weren't going anywhere anyway to win Hispanic votes. No surprise there.
Your delusion is that republican leaders have a different agenda. Romney proposed importing 2 million high tech workers claiming a shortage even though unemployment in those sectors were double digits. He also stated at the second debate he'd like to staple a green card to the top 20% of students at every major university in the world. Personally I'd rather see millions of immigrants competing for jobs with other immigrants at McDonalds, gutting chickens and doing yards than the Romney plan which would mean our best and brightest who already face 30% unemployment after college to maybe 70% or more because Romney opened up the flood gates driving down wages for our best paying careers.
You can't really believe that. Have you ever heard a president questioned about his birth despite presenting his birth certificate? Heard one who declared his faith as Christian called a secret Muslim? He's called a Muslim, Communist, Socialist and every name in the book. No president in history has faced the hate Obama has not on his actions but on conspiracy theories and ourageous assumptions.
"Obama isn't advancing an agenda by allowing gays to live as they choose or women to do as they wish with their bodies he's allowing them to exercise their rights."
Larry, please extract head from sandpit. What about the aborted baby's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" Do you not believe the unborn child doesn't have the same rights as the living children you're trying to protect through "gun control" laws?
Every woman is allowed to do what they wish with their body; that, usually, is what causes the need for the abortion. The "do as they wish with their bodies" is a straw man argument that tries to change the discussion from the killing of an unborn child to "it's my body and you're not the boss of me!" As you lefties are so fond of saying, "Your right ends when it infringes on my right." Those mommies who did as they wish with their bodies seem to be infringing on the "right to life" of the innocent unborn.
You'll gain more respect by cutting the b.s. straw arguments and admitting that there are times when abortion may be necessary, and times that it isn't. Just because you knocked up a girl during a drunken lay, do you really have the right to kill the fetus?
"You can't really believe that"
Yep. Look at all the insults to Dubyah's intelligence made by the left-wingers. There was just as much disrespect and insults thrown against him, Clinton, and GHW Bush, they were just of different subjects. I know that Sarah Palin wasn't a president, but the leftwing mouthpiece still calls her sexist names (read c-word) on his HBO show.
President Obama's background and upbringing brought about the subject of his insults. Not saying those people are correct, but it's cause-and-effect in action. Why did no one question whether Dubyah or Clinton were born in the US?
@ CC GWRider
I have an idea, why don't you let God worry about it. Since the Supreme Court has already declared it legal, you can leave it up to God. Just because you have decided when life starts, doesn't mean everyone else does. Hence the argument from Lance or the left is valid. You worry about your body and let everone else worry about there own. If you don't believe in abortion, great more power to you. But for someone else, it's really none of your business. Even if you use the Bible to back your claim, it's still not up to you to judge or condemn. From a biblical point of view those that should be between the woman and God. If I remember correctly the only way open to get into heaven is through Jesus, not from a mere mortal such as yourself. I believe the quote comes from a verse in John to which Jesus says "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Do you believe everything that all other branches of Christianity believe in? Should a Jevohah Witness member be made to accept a blood transfusion when it's against their beliefs. Should snake handling preachers be banned because they might die for exercising their right to worship, even though they view their death as being called by God. Would you have sacrificed your son because God spoke to you like Abraham. Now granted Abraham was given a reprieve, but what would have happened if he was not?
Your arguments to Larry come across as more than a little self righteous to me.
We live in a Thermo Nuclear Age. Make no mistake Thermo Nuclear Weapons can destroy nations.
Personally I want less Nuclear weapons in our world. I also want to see a solution for handling nuclear waste.
I really don't understand why we can't put the nuclear waste on rockets and shoot them into the sun for disposal instead of stock piling it here on earth. We can launch space probes that travel beyond our solar system. There is also risk I understand something may possibly go wrong during a launch before the rocket leaves earths atmosphere and radiation could fall back onto the earth. I still think shooting the radio active waste away from the earth is the better way to deal with it than stock piling it here on earth.
The problem is that the government isn't able to disguise the purpose of the launch as beneficial to the country. Safety of the people and environment isn't high enough on the list. drilling core samples in Mars is so much more beneficial. Knowing the gaseous make-up of Pluto's atmosphere has more benefit to Americans than removing toxic waste.
Sending Sen. Jake Garn into space to see the effects of weightlessness on a yoyo was more benenficial that taking a different load of garbage into space.
Can you imagine the fallout, "no pun intended" that an administration would face if such a rocket exploded in the atmosphere?
I had that idea years ago but you are right what if there is a mistake?
... circular argument.
We can't afford a tragedy like the Challenger shuttle disaster, especially filled with nuclear waste. We do have technology to utilize it, extending our fuel cycle, but we don't use it. France has a closed fuel cycle, we don't.
So say we design these containers capable of withstanding a shuttle explosion -- well, if they can survive that, we don't need to launch them into space in the first place. There is a lot of research on the fuel cycle, but budgets keep getting cut. The Department of Energy funds most of this research, and *gasp* when politicians cut the budget, where do you think they go first?
PS - We need Pu-238 for our space shuttles. If you're interested in the science, google "thermoelectric generators" and YouTube has a video from Los Alamos National Lab about a newer design space nuclear engine.
Barry now has the perfect answer to our debt crisis. He can sell the Nuclear weapons directly to Iran, North Korea and Pakistan. With the right marketing plan we can make a bundle and pay down our obscene debt.
The world will be safer because the new owners will only use the weapons for self defense. We have to agree that this guy is a genius. He is the standard by which all former and future Presidents should be judged.
I hope he makes enough so that I can stop working and get on the Handout Express.
GBA
Yea Zorro, we can all get on the Handout Express and no one will ever have to work again!
Afterall, that is the liberal goal.
That is a good idea except that obama is just another one who exercises Welfare Wealth - use part of the money for its intended purpose but then fritter it away on other unnecessary things. They live like kings on steak and wine for the first three days after they get their checks and then struggle the rest of the month.
Welfare recipients don't know the difference between "need" and "want". obama is no different. He doesn't do what needs to be done for the good of the country but does what he wants to meet his personal agenda.
Or get on the pay no tax express and just keep borrowing from China as Bush did. I'm sure they'll continue to loan us a trillion a year to fund our military forever. Why wouldn't they?
2con
No that is not the liberal goal, that's the right wing lie. There's a big difference. Get you head out of Hannity's pants.
All for it. 1000+ nukes and those on the other side is STILL enough for mutual destruction, and even those (if) survived...will experience a world I doubt worth living. There is such a thing as "overkill." I'm more concerned with the nut jobs rogue nations wanting to lob a few as a fashion statement. So much money (all countries) wasted on various ways to annihilate each other while starvation, poverty, no futures for the young to find gainful employment hence..."idle time nurtures nothing but trouble and pent up frustrations"...it is sad that the human race excels in high-tech new ways to eliminate each other while the basic necessities of life go unattended. The human species; a marvel or a failed experiment? You make the call.
Pres. Obama is right in saying that nuclear weapons are not suited to the types of wars we fight today. We have them as a deterrent to other countries who might launch theirs at us. We certainly don't need so many that we alone could destroy the Earth many, many times over. If we ever have to use them, we are lost anyway...and so is everyone else on the planet.
Launch a few at some random countries and we call all start over, like in fallout 3 and new vegas. All of our debt problems will be solved as the accepted currency in post-apocalyptia would be bottle caps. All of the other countries around the world be non issues and washington DC would have a computerized president hell bent eradicating illegals and undesirables. It would be a doomsday prepper's dream; justifying all the junk they bought to protect themselves from scary stories.
You obviously aren't talking about this administration. That would be eradicating votes.
In a perfect world, all nations would give up their nuclear weapons, but that is not reality. Unfortunately we are going to have to keep a large stockpile of nukes simply as a deterrent especially as rouge nations come on the scene like Iran and North Korea
Just like the book...
Why was there no discussion at all about the number of warheads that China has targeted on the US?
China probably has 200 nuclear warheads, even with that number it is excessive not to mention thousands.
Because someone might finally figure out that Obama is the single worst thing to happen to America ever.
Because someone might finally figure out that Obama is the single worst thing to happen to America ever.
Pretty worthless gesture by an aloof and out of touch administration. Why announce it? To garner more votes and get the press to suck on it some more. Cut the arsenal by 60% and you still have enough to wreck the planet. What is the point of cutting it at all given the fact that the first volley will be the last one. The little punks like North Korea and Iran and Pakistan and India don't really give a rat's butt what we do. They are going to build more. What is wrong with facing the facts and admitting we will never have a world devoid of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and conventional stuff too? This eutopian BS is just that. This administration is just blowing smoke up the Earth's butt. Oooooo so warm and nice. Keep puffing Barry. John Lennon was wrong.
They really are not a deterrent, just a source for terrorists
Ed....You must be living under a Rock..... If I remember right... 2 have been used to kill/mame aboput 500,000. And that detered the Emporer from giving the go on Millions of Har-Karri's.. tone it down a notch...and me at my door with a Glock .40 will deter you from entry..... we'd be speaking "Commrad" if not!
I doubt it. Despite the huge numbers the Soviets had we've proven in Korea, Vietnam and the Israeli wars their weapons were no match. Our fighter jets in Korea killed top of the line Soviet fighters at something like a 26 to 1 rate.
Larry-367607 Please check your facts before you post. In the Korean war the total US aircraft lost were just over 2800 and the total enemy aircraft lost was just over 1800. That sir is not even close to 26 to 1 but more like 1.5 of ours to 1 of theirs. Furthermore in the Israeli wars we only provided the aircraft to the Israeli Air Force and it was their expert pilots that did most of the work. A great pilot can take an inferior aircraft and defeat a poor pilot even if they are in a superior aircraft.
"Psssssst....hey Dimitri...tell Vlad to just wait until after the election, then I will have more flexibility."
About time we only need enough to destroy the world 2 or 3 times not 100 (sarcasm)
Na....say it aint so.... It's part of his plan to kill the military, so snoop-bona-a-phone can have more food stamps for strip joints... It's funny how MSNBC has absolutley no mention of the Penetta hearing yesterday. Another Bias for the American taxpayer to save face with the Idiot-In-Cheif! He lied, Obama, lied, and Hillary lied...and you won't print the truth...You just don't print anything negative about the people who are killing the USA!...Is it Gates???or SOROS?
They had an article yesterday on the Panetta hearings. If you want yesterdays news you need to read yesterdays articles. Though I'm sure Fox will repeat it for 2 weeks. Try there. As for Benghazi despite right wingers trying to paint this as some great national tragedy 4 men dying doesn't fit unless it's for an agenda. 3600 killed on 9-11, 7000 on Bush's 2 wars and the worst economic meltdown on Bush's watch were real tragedies. Less than a hand full getting killed in a terrorist attack is only a tragedy for the families affected. You couldn't sell it as some big fukup for the election isn't it time to give it up?
Any reduction makes no sense in an increasingly hostile world that is itself increasing it's stockpile of nuclear weapons including China, NK, Pakistan, and soon Iran. Russia is NOT the only threat you fools.
Nuclear bombs are Insane. Over whelming conventional low-tek attack strategys has made them less effective.
Another liberal that thinks it's ok to kill one at a time but, kill a million at once and that's a tragedy.
Yes, most sane people even on the right believe taking out an evil person like Bin Laden is great but nuking a city is very bad. Most in a city aren't evil trying to murder as many as they can. If I was a republican I'd be embarrassed to count you on my side. Or do they all think that way? In any case I thank god I don't.
The reason a Nuke IS a deterrent against crazies like Iran and N. Korea is that if used against them, there is nowhere they can hide in their country. A Nuke is none nondiscretionary for a reason, if the leaders go into hiding they still get hit. Why do you think Japan gave up after we nuked them? The crazy at the top wanted to keep fighting but the people said, "Enough is enough."
@CItoldu
You can't Nuke every Rat hole in Iran !
What this article is not detailing is the type of warheads Bush got rid of, they were outdated one's, they have been replaced with newer versions, the number of warheads is basically the same.
Cutting the nuclear arsenal is foolish at a time when those who would use nukes against us are striving to compete with us on that level.
Do we really need 1000 warheads to deal with a country like North Korea which has 6 or so bombs most of which wouldn't have 5% of the yield ours has? Even if Iran builds a few they'll never be able to afford to have more than a deterrent number. Like India and Pakistan. No one's talking about doing away with them but simply bringing them down to reasonable levels. The nutjob in North Korea very well could bomb our troops there if he had the slightest reason but we'll always have enough to wipe out that @!$%#hole.
Great idea Mr. Odumbo; as the threat increases we decrease our our offensive capability....good call.
So when North Korea developed it's first nuke and Iran continued to strive to make them Bush was simply a man of peace for cutting our number of warheads in half but the black president facing the identical threats is weakening our country by cutting back a small fraction of what Bush did? Name one country that is now a threat that wasn't when Bush was president?
Under Hussein Obama our enemies have become more emboldened. They know he is a weak leader. His skin color has nothing to do with it, don't even try to go that route. It's his beliefs and politics we can do without.
I love this "as the threat increases" nonsense. Increases relative to what? We stood down a nuclear stockpiled USSR for fifty years and nowadays we're quaking in our boots because of Iran, North Korea and a bunch of Islamic fanatics living in caves.
We spend more than every other nation on earth combined on military hardware, we haven't had a foreign army on our soil since the Gettysburg campaign, and people are seriously worried if we can only destroy planet earth 5 times instead of 6? What a joke. We have become a nation of utter cowards.
Offensive capability? Our nuclear weapons are offensive only if we make a first strike which is politically unthinkable because of the threat of relaliation. Our nuclear weapons exist only as a deterrent.
Nuclear weapons are a blunt instrument. We're much better off spending money on stealth weapons, cruise missles, etc... that can be used in a conventional conflict.
Is this tool trying to make our country weaker?
Obama is weakening America so his country, whatever that is, will be able to attack us more easily.
What's more frightening, skibum's ridiculous comment, or the fact that 3 people agree with him ?
So reduce the nukes, but keep the March first reductions as little as possible, You dummies we have in congress don't you remember history every time we make cuts in our Military something happens and we have to do abing build up to catch up and be able to fight the war someone else starts by hitting the country with a weak military ......