Obama's Plan For American Security

Security????? He would sell us out in a minute.

0 Replies

If he "can't win a general election," what does that say about Hillary?

I know, I know. This isn't about her.

Would we really be in more danger thatn we are now? Having a President who votes AGAINST a 5 billion dollar per week war that only serves to breed more terrorists?

0 Replies

Re: Obama's Plan For American Security

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Want scary? Now THIS is scary!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8529244177526117435

What's scary about this, exactly?

I'd like you to be specific, if possible.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I'd like to know too.
And why, pray tell, the sellout comment? What's that all about?

0 Replies

Surely people can tell us what specifically is bad about the plan.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Civilian Review of Military Spending.
Nuclear disarmament.
Keeping weapons out of space.

These are radical ideas.

0 Replies

Oh I see.
Radical=scary.

Yep, that's usually the way it goes.

0 Replies

Nobody even wants to attempt to answer this?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Civilian Review of Military Spending.

We already have that.
The house and senate armed services committees, the defense appropriations committees, and it is congress that controls the purse strings already.

Nuclear disarmament.

Salt and Start treaties.
Bush has already destroyed several thousand US Nuke weapons.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NUCLEAR_WEAPONS?SITE=CAACS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush has approved "a significant reduction" in the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, cutting it to less than one-quarter its size at the end of the Cold War, the White House said Tuesday.

At the same time, the Energy Department announced plans to consolidate the nuclear weapons complex that maintains warheads and dismantle those no longer needed, saying the current facilities need to be made more efficient and more easily secured and that the larger complex is no longer needed.

Quote:
The government will not provide any numbers on the overall size of the nuclear stockpile, but there are believed to be nearly 6,000 warheads that either are deployed or in reserve.

Separately, under terms of a 2002 arms control treaty with Russia, the U.S. is committed to reducing the number of deployed warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012.

Three years ago, Bush said he wanted the overall stockpile reduced to half by 2012, but officials said that goal now has been reached so further reductions are being made, resulting in the new targets for 2012.

Keeping weapons out of space.

There are already treaties that do that.

These are radical ideas.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
Civilian Review of Military Spending.

We already have that.
The house and senate armed services committees, the defense appropriations committees, and it is congress that controls the purse strings already.

Nuclear disarmament.

Salt and Start treaties.
Bush has already destroyed several thousand US Nuke weapons.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NUCLEAR_WEAPONS?SITE=CAACS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush has approved "a significant reduction" in the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, cutting it to less than one-quarter its size at the end of the Cold War, the White House said Tuesday.

At the same time, the Energy Department announced plans to consolidate the nuclear weapons complex that maintains warheads and dismantle those no longer needed, saying the current facilities need to be made more efficient and more easily secured and that the larger complex is no longer needed.

Quote:
The government will not provide any numbers on the overall size of the nuclear stockpile, but there are believed to be nearly 6,000 warheads that either are deployed or in reserve.

Separately, under terms of a 2002 arms control treaty with Russia, the U.S. is committed to reducing the number of deployed warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012.

Three years ago, Bush said he wanted the overall stockpile reduced to half by 2012, but officials said that goal now has been reached so further reductions are being made, resulting in the new targets for 2012.

Keeping weapons out of space.

There are already treaties that do that.

These are radical ideas.

If this is all what's being done already, what exactly is the problem?

Thank you for posting this!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I'm not the one that said Obama's plan was scary.

0 Replies

He can reduce our ability to defend ourselves.....................but that is not stopping other countries from doing what THEY want!

0 Replies

It known that dozen countries are queing up, waiting for Obama to become president and then to invade the USA.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Surely people can tell us what specifically is bad about the plan.

Cycloptichorn

Here is why Obama can not be an effective CIC and why his so called plan would be a disaster for the US..

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared on Thursday that Iran was the world's "number one" power, as he launched a bitter new assault on domestic critics he accused of siding with the enemy.
"Everybody has understood that Iran is the number one power in the world," Ahmadinejad said in a speech to families who lost loved ones in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

"Today the name of Iran means a firm punch in the teeth of the powerful and it puts them in their place," he added in the address broadcast live on state television.

Ahmadinejad's comments come amid renewed Western efforts on the UN Security Council to agree a third package of sanctions against Tehran over its refusal to suspend sensitive nuclear activities.

They also came a day after former top nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani launched an unprecedented attack on Ahmadinejad's foreign policy, accusing him of using "coarse slogans and grandstanding".

"You can see how some people here... try to materialise the plans of the enemies and by showing that Iran is small and the enemy is big," added Ahmadinejad.

"These are the people who put the enemies of humanity in the place of God," said the deeply religious president.

He also told the families of the "martyrs" of the war that their loss was not in vain as the message of the Islamic revolution of 1979 that ousted the pro-US shah was spreading all over the world.

"Today the message of your revolution is being heard in South America, East Asia, in the heart of Europe and even in the United States itself," he said.

Ahmadinejad said he talked with people everywhere he travelled in the world and "it is like I am in district 17 in Tehran", referring to the low-income area in the south of the Iranian capital where he was giving his speech.

Ahmadinejad is due to travel to Iraq on Sunday in the first visit by a president of the Islamic republic to its western neighbour.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080228105322.ylw1j5ia&show_article=1

So at a time when there is military expanision in a critical part of the world, where we spent millions od dollars many thousands of US live, Obama thinks it is a good idea to reduce the military, reduce our arsenal, and work with Russia to reduce ICBM's.

GREAT IDEA!!!

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

He can reduce our ability to defend ourselves.....................but that is not stopping other countries from doing what THEY want!

None of the things he talks about reduces our ability to defend ourselves.

I'd like you to be specific about how the things he discusses reduce our ability to defend ourselves.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

So at a time when there is military expanision in a critical part of the world, where we spent millions od dollars many thousands of US live, Obama thinks it is a good idea to reduce the military, reduce our arsenal, and work with Russia to reduce ICBM's.

He said it better than I could, so I will quote him.

If you understand the concept, no explanation is needed, If you don't understand the concept, there is no point in attempting to explain it.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

woiyo wrote:
So at a time when there is military expanision in a critical part of the world, where we spent millions od dollars many thousands of US live, Obama thinks it is a good idea to reduce the military, reduce our arsenal, and work with Russia to reduce ICBM's.

He said it better than I could, so I will quote him.

If you understand the concept, no explanation is needed, If you don't understand the concept, there is no point in attempting to explain it.

We have all the nukes we need; we have a military that is MORE then big enough to defend America from any attack which could be launched against us. Our technology for missile defense doesn't work and hasn't worked for a long, long time, despite the many billions of dollars thrown away on the programs.

The problem is that you people don't understand what the word 'defense' means. It seems that some are so reflexively against cutting any money from the defense budget that they will shriek and flap their hands about whenever anyone suggests that this is what should happen. It's not a reasonable position to take and certainly not one that the vast majority of Americans agree with.

I think that if you are going to make accusations, Phoenix, you ought to be able to back them up yourself.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

this particular cat was let out of the bag when we bombed Hiroshima. Putting a cat back in a bag ins a damn near insurmountable task.

0 Replies

The information above about the huge reduction in our nuclear stockpile is accurate. In addition we have already dismantled the factory complex whereby we manufactured (and remanufactured) nuclear weapons. The plutonium fabrication plant at Rocky Flats CO has been closed, demolished, and covered over. Other sites and production lines have also been shut down. Our remaining production capacity at Los Alamos is that associated with the research facility there. It is barely sufficient to provide for the periodic replacement and remanufacturing of the plutonium cores of existing weapons, required by the inexorable radioactive decay of the materials themselves. In short our nuclear arsenel is now about 20% of what it was at its peak, and we no longer have the physical capacity to increase it. Indeed we just barely have the capability to maintain what we have.

Obama goes on to note that, in addition to rather large cuts in the defense budget, he would also "cease the production of new fissile materials". I don't really know what he means by that phrase. Does he refer to the enrichment of uranium? or the separation of spent fuel from reactors into its remaining fissionable parts? If so that would be very stupid -- we will need these materials to fuel nuclear reactors for the production of electrical power.

I too would like to see some reduction in military spending. However a too precipitous cut could have serious and lasting adverse effects on both our capability and on the potential actions of hostile powers and movements. We saw this all before with Jimmy Carter.

0 Replies

Obama's Plan For American Security

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know