The Perception of Weakness Emboldens Our Enemies

[deacon blues]

JD, we are not only reducing the number we have, we are restricting their use. We are quantifying when and where we will use nukes in limited fashion. We are sending the wrong message to both our friends and enemies. Our friends who depended on our unwavering commitment to protect them when threatened or attacked, our enemies, who you seem to take lightly, may perceive a reluctance from this admin to be strong on defense. It may not result on a the enemy showing up on our shores ready to fight. It may result in other actions that kill our allies, our soldiers or our citizens. The chance that other nations, as Krauthammer points out, will seek to provide their own security through nuclear weapons development, thus defeating the notion that unilateral disarmament will inspire others to follow suit.

And I do not believe the total elimination of nuclear weapons will ever happen.

You still have not answered my question: what have we gained by reducing our stockpile and announcing that we will limit the use of nukes?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

JD, we are not only reducing the number we have, we are restricting their use. We are quantifying when and where we will use nukes in limited fashion. We are sending the wrong message to both our friends and enemies. Our friends who depended on our unwavering commitment to protect them when threatened or attacked, our enemies, who you seem to take lightly, may perceive a reluctance from this admin to be strong on defense. It may not result on a the enemy showing up on our shores ready to fight. It may result in other actions that kill our allies, our soldiers or our citizens. The chance that other nations, as Krauthammer points out, will seek to provide their own security through nuclear weapons development, thus defeating the notion that unilateral disarmament will inspire others to follow suit.

And I do not believe the total elimination of nuclear weapons will ever happen.

You still have not answered my question: what have we gained by reducing our stockpile and announcing that we will limit the use of nukes?

I'm still a bit hazy on what the law or whatever actually says on how we will limit the use of nukes.

As far as getting other nations to reduce their nukes... that is a good thing. However, there is one drawback. I think reducing stockpiles of nukes may lead to a terrorist getting their hands on one. As long as everything has to be accounted for a nuke probly won't go missing. But the moment some are supposed to be destroyed and can go missing without anyone noticing... well with enough money involved ya never know...

[deacon blues]

Our allies that possess nukes are not a threat. If the Ukraine reduces their stockpiles, so what? We aren't convincing truly threatening nations like North Korea and Iran aren't moved by our token reductions and our image management. While we are trying to influence nations that are no threat, the real threats continue to snub their noses at us while we lob idle threats toward them.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

JD,



You still have not answered my question: what have we gained by reducing our stockpile and announcing that we will limit the use of nukes?

It's a gesture promoting peace, harmony and the non-proliferation of mukes around the world.

However, in the end, it is a gesture.


I agree with you, we'll never be rid of nukes and I don't think we ever should get rid of all of our nukes.

[Ferd]

Reduction is a good thing.

not modernizing is idiocy.

GWB reduced. Obama refuses to modernize.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Reduction is a good thing.

not modernizing is idiocy.

GWB reduced. Obama refuses to modernize.

Maybe his refusal has something to do with the principles that he has concerning nuclear weapons.

Has he shed any light on his logic in not modernizing our weapons?


Maybe he wants to avoid hypocrisy in this area.

To say we're going to reduce but then turn around and modernize what we do have smacks of hypocrisy to me.

How much more modernizing do our nuclear weapons need anyway?


If his goal is to not proliferate nuclear weapons, "modernizing" our nuclear weapons would be hypocritical.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Maybe his refusal has something to do with the principles that he has concerning nuclear weapons.

I believe this is 100% accurate. And I consider this to be proof positive that the man should not be President.

WeHii is the key to understaning the man.


Well Educated, Highly Intelegent Idiot.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I believe this is 100% accurate. And I consider this to be proof positive that the man should not be President.

WeHii is the key to understaning the man.


Well Educated, Highly Intelegent Idiot.

Ok, so that's established.


His decision is based on principles, right?

You and I may not share that particular principle, but more than half of the country (you konow those folks who voted for him) apparently do.

He is definitely in step with his Democrat base by not proliferating nuclear weapons.


If that is his modus operandi, then it really isn't a shocker.

It would be very contradictory for him to sign a non proliferation pact, promise to dispose of some of our nuclear weapons, AND AT THE SAME TIME modernize our stockpile.

Speaking of money, do we have the money to "modernize" these?


Is it even necessary?

I am sure that our stuff isn't broken, dusty or rusty. Republicans haven't been out of office 2 years yet.


What do we need, extra strength nuclear weaponry?

Turbo-Charged nuclear weaponry?

Or maybe he should be putting money into modernizing our nuclear weapons in a way to make them more eco-friendly?


C'mon Ferd!

Refusing to modernize our nuclear weapons is a loaded phrase. But what does it mean?

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Ok, so that's established.


His decision is based on principles, right?

You and I may not share that particular principle, but more than half of the country (you konow those folks who voted for him) apparently do.

He is definitely in step with his Democrat base by not proliferating nuclear weapons.


If that is his modus operandi, then it really isn't a shocker.

It would be very contradictory for him to sign a non proliferation pact, promise to dispose of some of our nuclear weapons, AND AT THE SAME TIME modernize our stockpile.

Speaking of money, do we have the money to "modernize" these?


Is it even necessary?

I am sure that our stuff isn't broken, dusty or rusty. Republicans haven't been out of office 2 years yet.


What do we need, extra strength nuclear weaponry?

Turbo-Charged nuclear weaponry?

Or maybe he should be putting money into modernizing our nuclear weapons in a way to make them more eco-friendly?


C'mon Ferd!

Refusing to modernize our nuclear weapons is a loaded phrase. But what does it mean?

It is his principles that are the problem.

There is a very real need to move to a modernized delivery platform. I have no issue with reduction of the stockpile. that is a good thing.

but if we are not willing to insure that our deliery methodology is the best it can be (and that is the real issue here) then we signal our enemies that we are weak and not willing to use what weapons we have MAD is only MAD if everyone plays along. we arent because WeHii wont.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Dude,

YOU KNOW that Iran and North Korea are not going to try to attack the United States!

We KNOW that they will try and attack us at the first opportunity. They have repeatedly stated that.

Your "non-states" comment is more on point.

However, the reason for the attack will not be, "America is too weak to defend herself."

Every bully attacks the moment they see a sign of weakness.

The reasoning will be that "Aemrica is evil and must be destroyed."

They think that also.

NO ONE IS GOING TO ATTACK AMERICA FOR PUBLICLY MAKING A STANCE FOR PEACE IN THE WORLD!

IF they think they can do it they will do it.

Typical right-wing scare tactics are being employed by Pel....

Not at all. He is stating the truth on this. Liberals will of course, disagree with him.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Pel,

There isn't any nation, any group, or any one person who is intent on doing harm to the U.S. who expects the U.S. to respond with a nuclear weapon, unless they use one on us first.

The deal between President Obama and Mevdev concerns stockpiles of nuclear weapons and the pursuit of security and peace so that the threat of nuclear attack can be lessened, even if it is only a little bit.


Again, most of what was done was symbolic-- the President of this world's strongest defender of peace publicly taking action that encourages peace.


Nothing was said or done to make America appear weak in this.

Are you kidding me? That is exactly what he did and he most likely did it with that intent.

Seriously, you have swallowed hook, line and sinker a negative spin on a positive action by our President.

JD I am afraid you are the one that has taken the bait on this issue.
[QUOTE=jfrog;897453]I'm still a bit hazy on what the law or whatever actually says on how we will limit the use of nukes.

As far as getting other nations to reduce their nukes... that is a good thing. However, there is one drawback. I think reducing stockpiles of nukes may lead to a terrorist getting their hands on one. As long as everything has to be accounted for a nuke probly won't go missing. But the moment some are supposed to be destroyed and can go missing without anyone noticing... well with enough money involved ya never know...[/QUOTE]

Good point. Remember that is exactly what happened when Russia supposedly got rid of some of their dirty bombs.


Also, has anyone considered this angle. With the notification to the world we are doing all we can to make it easier for you to attack us, that this could throw us into war giving BO the opportunity to declare marshall law AND stop future elections for president???