Article

2009-09-21 Home Front: Politix

Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by john frum 2009-09-21 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 Not to beat a dead horse but if he were an agent of the enemies of the United States what would he be doing differently?

Posted by Hellfish 2009-09-20 18:15|| 2009-09-20 18:15|| Front Page Top

#2 "Obama is now driving this process. He is saying these are the president's weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role."

These are NOT the president's weapons. He, despite the Lefts bleatings to the contrary, is the chief executive, not the bloody king. Changing nuclear doctrine this radically will involve the Congress, the military, the nation.

However, if everyone else wusses out, he is the de facto king, in this department.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2009-09-20 18:21|| 2009-09-20 18:21|| Front Page Top

#3 This move is two-fer for Obama.

It significantly reduces American power and security, but it also sets the stage to pressure Israel either to accept extinction by giving up its arsenal or become a pariah state forbidden US aid.

Posted by lotp 2009-09-20 19:24|| 2009-09-20 19:24|| Front Page Top

#4 "Not to beat a dead horse but if he were an agent of the enemies of the United States what would he be doing differently?"

I've been scratching my head over that very same question for several months now. And the best answer I've been able to come up with is "nothing." His first loyalty appears to be to the transnational progressive movement, not to America.

Barack Obama is either one of the stupidest, most boneheaded nincompoops ever to occupy the White House, or he's on a barely-clandestine mission to weaken America and destroy its standing as a world power.

I think we're in DEEP shit.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2009-09-20 19:38|| 2009-09-20 19:38|| Front Page Top

#5 time for some General Officers and Flag Rank equivalents to fire their "silver bullets" by going public about this! This man cannot unilaterally undo 65 years of defense policy at a whim! He most certainly is not the F*cking king, and will only stop acting like it when he gets a firm NO!

Posted by NoMoreBS 2009-09-20 19:51|| 2009-09-20 19:51|| Front Page Top

#6 Well, we already had Madeline Halfbright telling the Russians a few days ago the USA No Longer Intends To Be World's No.1 State. Obama just wants to make it official. Question is how low will we go? Oh, and another question, will the Pentagon's study take into account the combined number of nukes that Russia, China, North Korean, Iran and Pakistan all have pointed at us? Oh, and did Barry ever hear of nuclear blackmail?

Posted by Abu Uluque 2009-09-20 20:08|| 2009-09-20 20:08|| Front Page Top

#7 How many "own goals" can your team captain score before you pull him from the game?

Obama is a monstrosity - and I shudder to think of the magnitude of the damage he can wreak over the next 40 months.

Posted by Lone Ranger 2009-09-20 20:11|| 2009-09-20 20:11|| Front Page Top

#8 We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, , promote the provide for the common defencegeneral Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Is the President upholding the Constitution of the United States?

As it reads "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Posted by Dr. Hannibal Lecter 2009-09-20 20:15|| 2009-09-20 20:15|| Front Page Top

#9 Sorry first line garbled, it reads - We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Posted by Dr. Hannibal Lecter 2009-09-20 20:19|| 2009-09-20 20:19|| Front Page Top

#10 Listen to Peter Finch

Start each day that the "BIG O" has to start thinking of you and what Mr Finch had to say ... really

Posted by Dr. Hannibal Lecter 2009-09-20 20:32|| 2009-09-20 20:32|| Front Page Top

#11 Ronnie was ready to go for the same deal at Rekjavik.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2009-09-20 20:48|| 2009-09-20 20:48|| Front Page Top

#12 Nimble, Obama ain't no Ronnie....and no way in hell is Putin a Gorbachev.

Posted by Cornsilk Blondie 2009-09-20 21:22|| 2009-09-20 21:22|| Front Page Top

#13 Reagan insisted on mutual moves, not unilateral disarmament.

And he had only Russia and China to deal with as nuclear peers. The existence of nuclear-armed rogue states signficantly complicates things.

Posted by lotp 2009-09-20 21:25|| 2009-09-20 21:25|| Front Page Top

#14 His first loyalty appears to be to the transnational progressive movement, not to America.

Someone smarter than me made the same point a couple of days ago. The tranzis are a blind spot to me- I can't understand how anyone takes them seriously who isn't blinded by anti-American rage.

Wasn't there some study done a while back that found via wargaming that the *minimum* nuke arsenals for the great powers should be around 2200? Otherwise a first-strike becomes too attractive?

Posted by Free Radical">Free Radical 2009-09-20 21:30|| 2009-09-20 21:30|| Front Page Top

#15 VARIOUS MIL FORUMS > NETTERS > seems RUSSIA has a MINIMA 5:1 ADVANTAGEZ, versus the USA = USSA/USR, in NON-STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS ESPEC TACTICAL = BATTLEFIELD NUKES???

The good news is that US GMD-TMD gets to act like our Cold War OFFENSIVE strategic FBM submarines + USAF bombers, SAVE BUT FOR DEFENSE FROM TACNUCWEAPS + IRBMS + MILITANT NUKULAAR TEHWERRISM [NucTerror].

Posted by JosephMendiola">JosephMendiola 2009-09-20 21:40|| na]">[na] 2009-09-20 21:40|| Front Page Top

#16 It's not like he didn't tell us what his plans were IF he was elected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0du8wMLzEY&NR=1

Posted by Woozle Uneter9007 2009-09-20 21:46|| 2009-09-20 21:46|| Front Page Top

#17 Instead of just slashing our nuclear arsenal, he could sell the excess to Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc. and transfer the proceeds to help fund ObamaCare.

Posted by Glenmore 2009-09-20 21:51|| 2009-09-20 21:51|| Front Page Top

#18 Because those you listed are his friends, Glenmore. One doesn't sell to their friends...they gift them.

Posted by Woozle Uneter9007 2009-09-20 21:56|| 2009-09-20 21:56|| Front Page Top

#19 He needs the money to pay for Obamacare.

Posted by crosspatch 2009-09-20 22:22|| 2009-09-20 22:22|| Front Page Top

#20 if he were an agent of the enemies of the United States what would he be doing differently?

An enemy agent would be a lot more discreet.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2009-09-21 04:13|| 2009-09-21 04:13|| Front Page Top

#21 This is also a test of the political reliability of the General Officer corps. Those who mumble but stay will be rewarded, those who resign will be id'd as 'unreliable'. Consider this a first step in a bloodless Stalinist purge phase of the military upper echelons.

Posted by Procopius2k 2009-09-21 08:12|| 2009-09-21 08:12|| Front Page Top

#22 Of course, they could always do the study and conclude by stating that Obama's goals are insane. You know, don't resign, just tell the truth. Defending the Constitution doesn't mean they have to lie, does it?

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2009-09-21 11:54|| 2009-09-21 11:54|| Front Page Top

#23 When crunch time comes we may be dependent on those who lied about their beliefs during the Zero administration.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-09-21 13:13|| 2009-09-21 13:13|| Front Page Top

#24 Is Barack Hussain Obama a Muslim ?

Posted by Dave UK 2009-09-21 15:35|| 2009-09-21 15:35|| Front Page Top

#25 After ending the threat from nuclear weapons by getting rid of ours, let's end crime by getting rid of the cops!

Posted by SteveS 2009-09-21 15:49|| 2009-09-21 15:49|| Front Page Top

#26 I'd like to see the nukes reduced on both the Russian and US sides, no matter who is President. But Free Radical brings up an interesting point; is there a link? I would have thought the number to be much smaller, especially since we're now deploying effective ABM.

Posted by KBK 2009-09-21 18:08|| 2009-09-21 18:08|| Front Page Top

#27

GUAM PDN FORUMS > BREITBART.com > GATES: CHINA COULD UNDERMINE US MILITARY POWER IN THE PACIFIC [US Forward Air Bases + USN Carrier Strike Groups]. US Dominance under threat frm China + EMERGING POWERS.

* SAME > POSTER RELATED > GATES: CHINA COULD NEUTRALIZE GUAM.

Posted by JosephMendiola">JosephMendiola 2009-09-21 22:10|| na]">[na] 2009-09-21 22:10|| Front Page Top

#28 Pardon, it was Ronald Reagan who said the aim should not be arms limitation but arms REDUCTION, and faulted previous efforts for that reason.

1500 weapons each would dwarf rogue state arsenals, and would keep in the spirit of Reagan

Posted by liberal hawk 2009-09-21 22:13|| 2009-09-21 22:13|| Front Page Top

#29 SAME > OBAMA SAYS US NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE HIS AND HE IS GETTING RID OF THEM.

POSTER - WW3 = WWR Redux where widout Nuclear Deterrence, US may be too weak to intervene + save the Pacific [long lead time, iff any?]. CHINA will be able to take over TAIWAN + PALAU + GUAM-CNMI + JAPAN.

D *** NG IT, WE MISSED THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS + MINIMA 1/2 OF CONUS-NORAM FOR "LIVING SPACE", DIDN'T WE!? Many CHIN NETTERS > iff the US were mil or geopol weak enough, CHIN COULD + SHOULD + WILL DO SO ["GREAT GAME" + MURPHY'S LAW + "LAW OF SURVIVAL/JUNGLE [Darwinism] > STRONG NATIONS SHOULD NOT ONLY SURVIVE BUT SHOULD LEAD]???

Posted by JosephMendiola">JosephMendiola 2009-09-21 22:18|| na]">[na] 2009-09-21 22:18|| Front Page Top

#30 I would have thought the number to be much smaller, especially since we're now deploying effective ABM.

We're deploying just barely enough ABM to be intercepting a couple missiles from a rogue power that doesn't know what it's doing.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-09-21 22:35|| 2009-09-21 22:35|| Front Page Top

#31 Reagan was thinking in terms of systems that could stop attacks by much larger forces.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-09-21 22:36|| 2009-09-21 22:36|| Front Page Top

#32 "Reagan insisted on mutual moves, not unilateral disarmament."

mutual moves with Russia is what we are talking about.

"And he had only Russia and China to deal with as nuclear peers. The existence of nuclear-armed rogue states signficantly complicates things."

Im not sure it does, in terms of numbers of warheads.

Posted by liberal hawk 2009-09-21 22:39|| 2009-09-21 22:39|| Front Page Top

#33 STRONG NATIONS SHOULD NOT ONLY SURVIVE BUT SHOULD LEAD

Peace through strength, Joe.

Posted by Woozle Uneter9007 2009-09-21 22:51|| 2009-09-21 22:51|| Front Page Top

23:28 JohnQC
23:26 JohnQC
23:22 JohnQC
23:19 JohnQC
23:18 JohnQC
23:13 JohnQC
23:11 Woozle Uneter9007
23:10 JohnQC
23:03 JohnQC
22:51 Woozle Uneter9007
22:41 JosephMendiola
22:39 liberal hawk
22:37 liberal hawk
22:36 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:35 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:31 liberal hawk
22:31 JosephMendiola
22:29 liberal hawk
22:27 GirlThursday
22:24 liberal hawk
22:21 liberal hawk
22:18 liberal hawk
22:18 JosephMendiola
22:13 liberal hawk