Obama to unilaterally disarm the United States

[RCG Trader]

Quote from achilles28:

haha . easy

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/awUFFNr3imY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Been about 20 years

Nice retro!

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

Actually from what i have seen most people's political views are pretty consistent on this site....

Perhaps, everyone's vision is different Max. We clash, but you know what is going on. I admire that. Stay safe. I say that now because one day quite soon I believe it will not be so easy to log on and talk shit.

 

[Trader666]

There's one option according to the OP to take it down to 300 warheads.

Quote from achilles28:

That's far too low already, imo. That's only ~220 missiles with 8 mirvs. Maybe 8 loaded SSBN's? From a strategic standpoint, it's not enough. The US stockpile isn't under threat from internal diversion or a rouge launch, like the Soviets. A more reasonable number would be 3-5K warheads, per side. Also, the missile shield should be pursued to thwart a rouge State, even to include Russia, to avert another arms race. Did Obama axe the missile shield? Not much talk, but space demilitarization treaties are bs. Space has been the frontier for weaponry, since the 70's. Satellite killers and broad/focused EMP weapons render the most sophisticated militaries back to the industrial age, in minutes. Including our own. The US has all this stuff already, and a lot more. But we're not told about it. It's possible America and the Soviets have technologies that make nukes obsolete. Hence the global push to dearm the planet, via START and NPT. This retains Western and Russian dominance with technologies that aren't covered, while boxing everyone else in to inferior technologies that are covered by treaty or "persuasion".

 

[Trader666]

I do know that 300 is insufficient, Thunderpussy--> Gayfly--> brASS. But it's really none of your business.

Quote from Brass:

You seem to know specifically which numbers are insufficient. Therefore, your apparent knowledge encompasses the numerical.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from RCG Trader:

Yeah, Lucrum has not had a cogent thought in a long time...

Quote from Mav88:
RCG is a brainless human cliche, never offering anything like an logical argument let alone apologetics for the left. RCG simply hurls up the standard ad hominem lines from the dog-eared pages of his little liberals manual that he received during his inculcation at some obscure humanities department.

Quote from Maverick74:
Max, RCG can't read. He has a very rare illness that prevents him from being able to recognize his own bullshit. I really don't know if there is a cure for it. Maybe one day science will provide a solution...

Quote from Maverick74:
Exactly you dunce. You labeled the entire BASE of the GOP as being racist. What the fuck dude. You just made a blanket statement of about 60 million people!!!! Just stop RCG. You are drowning in stupidity.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=207307

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=206624

You just can't help yourself can you? Again you demonstrate why you're a nurse and not a doctor.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Trader666:

There's one option according to the OP to take it down to 300 warheads.

Ya, I saw that. That's disastrous, imo. Who knows how the START treaty is enforced? Is there room to cheat? Probably. Even still, 300 isn't a credible deterrent. Not unless the military has better toys they're not telling us about (which I'm sure they do).

I agree with Max - the world is fucked up and there's enough nukes to light up the planet, 50 times over. The unfortunate nature of our reality is we need them to keep the peace.

Ron Paul isn't the dove you think he is. He's a big supporter of SSBN's and has said we should build more of them.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Ricter:

You do realize that the missile defense shield is viewed by others as a potentially offensive system which undermines MAD?

I never understood that myself. How is a defensive device considered an offensive weapon by anyone? You like to speak in riddles. Is a fence that keeps out intruders defensive or offensive?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Lucrum:

I never understood that myself. How is a defensive device considered an offensive weapon by anyone? You like to speak in riddles. Is a fence that keeps out intruders defensive or offensive?

The thinking is that your opponent (with the shield) can launch a first strike, and (with the shield) defeat your retaliatory strike. Since there's no longer a threat of MAD, the shield gives the country with it a "go" on attacking.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from wjk:

I don't have an issue with a reduced amount of warheads in our arsenal providing we don't underfund missile defense and associated research.

A successful missile defense system would act as a deterrent from a hostile country that would foolishly believe just having more nukes creates a winnable first strike option. It would be best to have a workable shield in place prior to unilateral disarmament.

Too bad you weren't born 60 years ago. You would have been a a strategic defense genius. Now you're just another insane person.

 

[Trader666]

Roughly half of the triad is Trident SLBMs on Ohio Class SSBNs, and they're great, but we still need to maintain the other two legs.

Obama has a dream of eliminating nukes altogether. Maybe he's trying to cram that down our throats like Obamacare.

Quote from achilles28:

Ya, I saw that. That's disastrous, imo. Who knows how the START treaty is enforced? Is there room to cheat? Probably. Even still, 300 isn't a credible deterrent. Not unless the military has better toys they're not telling us about (which I'm sure they do).

I agree with Max - the world is fucked up and there's enough nukes to light up the planet, 50 times over. The unfortunate nature of our reality is we need them to keep the peace.

Ron Paul isn't the dove you think he is. He's a big supporter of SSBN's and has said we should build more of them.