Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #1  
Old 05-16-2013, 10:29 AM
Franc Tireur Franc Tireur is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Obama to Announce Major US Nuclear Force Cuts Soon

Quote:
President Barack Obama is set to announce a new round of strategic nuclear warhead reductions in the near future as part of a disarmament agenda that could reduce U.S. strategic warheads to as few as 1,000 weapons.

The next round of U.S.-Russian arms talks would follow Obama's expected announcement that the United States' arsenal of strategic warheads can be reduced unilaterally to around 1,000 warheads. That position is expected as part of the Pentagon's long-delayed Nuclear Posture Review implementation study that Obama was expected to sign earlier this year.

Recent press reports have indicated that President Obama may make the cuts -- fully one-third of the nation's arsenal -- by executive action and without Congressional authorization.

Specialists on nuclear deterrence say further cuts beyond the 1,550 deployed warheads mandated by the 2010 New START arms treaty could undermine the United States' ability to deter nuclear powers like Russia and China, who have significant modernization programs for their nuclear arsenals underway.

Further cuts also are likely to embolden other non-nuclear states, including Japan, to consider building their own nuclear arsenals, analysts say.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said the administration is seeking to unilaterally disarm U.S. nuclear forces, something that is "the most dangerous thing I have ever seen an American president attempt to do."

"This is not the time to embark on such a dangerous path, with China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea increasing their nuclear forces," he said.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/oba...5/15/id/504736

First of all, I think the Congress should decide.

Second of all, if there is nucks reduction, it should involve all the major players on the negociation table to make a treaty.

Unilateral disarment is a very dangerous decision.

What are your thoughts on this?
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #2  
Old 05-17-2013, 01:44 AM
Jim Gillum's Avatar
Jim Gillum Jim Gillum is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: 11-17-09
Location: Deland, Florida
Posts: 7,263
iTrader: 0 / 0%
He is slowly destroying our country....
 
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-17-2013, 06:57 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,767
iTrader: 5 / 100%
This one seems like a non-starter to me.
1000 warheads?
Does it really matter if the US can only destroy each target 6 times instead of 10?
Would the ability to destroy Moscow 10 times instead of 6 really mean the difference between "winning" a mutual exchange of nuclear weapons and losing?
I think not.
I submit that we will all lose, even if the US has half the nuclear weapons as their nearest foe.

A gesture to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world is probably exactly what we need.
 
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-17-2013, 07:57 AM
Franc Tireur Franc Tireur is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
This one seems like a non-starter to me.
1000 warheads?
Does it really matter if the US can only destroy each target 6 times instead of 10?
Would the ability to destroy Moscow 10 times instead of 6 really mean the difference between "winning" a mutual exchange of nuclear weapons and losing?
I think not.
I submit that we will all lose, even if the US has half the nuclear weapons as their nearest foe.

A gesture to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world is probably exactly what we need.
I guess the question to ask is this: Does it matter to slash 1/3 of the US nuclear arsenal when some others are increasing their stockpile?

Nuclear weaponry is a best way to destroy the entire humanity, perhaps it will be smarter to talk each others and to reduce progressively the respective nuclear arsenal stockpiles.

IMO there are much better projects for the humanity than building nuclear weapons.

Last edited by Franc Tireur; 05-17-2013 at 08:00 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-17-2013, 08:22 AM
Aidan Roberts's Avatar
Aidan Roberts Aidan Roberts is offline
Member
 
Join Date: 05-17-13
Posts: 30
iTrader: 0 / 0%
It's a game of intimidation, to show how strong and rich a country is to produce and maintain and upgrade and replace x amount. Removing a third of the arsenal does not weaken the country at all, it's just a gesture and shows strength actually - the confidence that even with this major reduction we're not afraid.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama unveils plan to build nuclear plant Franc Tireur Controversial Social Issues 6 02-18-2010 10:37 AM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC