Michael

No apologies for posting consecutively on Barack Obama: the Looney Tunes President’s sell-out of US and Western interests is proceeding at such a speed that it is difficult to keep pace. Well said, Nile Gardiner, for asking if Barack Obama is the most naïve president in American history. The answer is undoubtedly yes – unless he has a secret agenda to cut America down to size.

"For Obama, success is not the delivery of watertight nuclear security for America; it is a feel-good news conference and photo opportunity that will create huge approval ratings on liberal campuses where the delusions of 1968 and the anti-Vietnam war movement still linger on in these isolated Jurassic Parks."

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

tanked_as_usual

shush....its a breakthrough.........and that's that........

it doesnt matter how much of an idiot he is made to look like, the blind sheep will adore him

Patters

The Cold War is over.

efin98

and your point is?

DarrylS

It is fascinating when a well known right wing blogger from Britian all of sudden attains veracity in a Brit newspaper .. have to wonder if the reverse is true, have never noticed any columns written this way in the american press..

Does it really make a difference if we have 3K nuclear warheads or 2K nuclear warheads???.. the difference is in quality.. Our delivery systems are better, our weapons systems are better.. and if there was ever a doomsday scenario it would not make much difference if 1K, 2K or 3K weapons were launched.. kiss your asses good by... peace out.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

PatsFanInVa

Boy does this feel like old times!!! The arms race, in the newspapers again!

Fortunately for the globe, we're picking back up on Reagan's track, to make this a race to the bottom.

Obama's taking up a cause that has cut across right and left in fits and starts, to bring the nukes down toward zero, in such a way that the security of all the stakeholders is nevertheless ensured.

That's a vision thing. And by the way, idiot fringies, don't get into too much of a lather when we're still talking about thousands of warheads. Worry about it when it's dozens.

By the logic of this argument, Reagan "endangered", "sold out," and "jeopardized" America and her allies more than any president in history, since he presided over the greatest actual reduction in history. (He watched "The Day After," according to the story, and told Perle et al to get ****ed, he just didn't like nukes anymore LOL...)

He also had a negotiating partner in Gorbachev who understood that real action was not only necessary but desireable.

The Reagan we ended up with on this topic was possible because of our peacenik opposition getting to him with a movie, and because the Commies were ready to talk turkey.

And now, Obama wants to pick up that work, with no significant ideological difference with the Russians (except perhaps that the Russians prefer their gangsters in the government, whereas we keep ours on the streets, mainly Wall- but also others.)

And some ash-clown decides that bilateral nuclear disarmament is giving away the proverbial store.

Gee, ever hear that tired old tune before?

I guess it depends how old you were in the 50s through 80s.

PFnV

Patters

We don't need our multi-1000 nuclear weapons. The US and Russia still have way more weapons than our enemies combined. Besides, one of the greatest single acts of terror in history was the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which even Eisenhower and other top leaders said was unnecessary. We established the "legitimacy" of using weapons that can murder tens of thousands of innocent children and other civilians. WMDs are wrong no matter whose hands they are in.

DarrylS

Thinking about this for a while, sometimes a right wing blogger likes the sensation rather than the facts.. how much killing can we do... if a nuclear confrontation ever stepped off, this planet be gone.. do not think we are a weak country at all..

Consider 1 military system, Submarines...

Currently we have 18 Nuclear Submarines...

14 are configured with 24 ICBM, with multiple warheads.. all of which are probably trained on Russia, so at any given time we have 336 missiles trained.. all with multiple warheads.. so figure with this system alone we have well over 1500 nuclear warheads targeted on Russia..

4 Submarines are equipped with 154 Cruise missiles each, for a total of 616 missiles all probably trained on strategic sites as well..

One of the ways we got around the SALT treaty was to reduce the number of missiles, but increase the number of warheads in each...

Source Global Security

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

PatsFanInVa

I'm not sure we'd target everything on Russia, given the various enemies we'd like to have a capability against. And I'm also not up on the number of MIRVs per missile anymore. Going back to the 80s-90s, a long time ago now, we were "behind", only getting 2-3 warheads on each missile. The Russians had it up to 8 per missile on the big land-based ICBMs. But that may have changed significantly since that time.

In regard to your post, however, we're clearly in a pretty good position to do what we're supposed to do w/SLBMs, that is, have a viable counterstrike capability. SLBMs aren't even conceived to be a main strike force, they're the backup in case someone believes they can knock out your deterrent with a first strike. Even that force is enough to make the only question how high we make the rubble bounce.

This is why the other nuclear powers typically build into the dozens or in 1 or 2 cases the hundreds. Why the hell would you want more?

PFnV

DarrylS

But the point is we could, in the event it ever stepped off, there are no good references regarding the number of warheads on each Trident... if there were 5 per missile, that would give the ability to target over 1800 sites at one time.. that would be pretty devastating..

They do not even mention how many megatons etc. remember those crazy numbers....

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.