Obama To Destroy American Nukes While Russians Prepare "Pre-emptive" Nuclear Doctrine

[Refrozen]

"Evil" is the wrong word as xmcp captured because it only captures things from one perspective. The real problem is that there is adversity in the world. Thus, we need nuclear weapons, because you have a Hawk-Dove game to disarm, which means something bad likely happens.

 

[Benji49]

Um, I hope I don't lose my official right-wing nutjob status by saying this, but my Dad was in NORAD military intelligence in the 1970s. His area of speciality was the Backfire bomber interceptions over the Canadian Arctic circle.

To summarize his opinion on this matter: When it comes to military matters, the Russians were a complete bunch of fuckups. They couldn't fly their planes because the fuel would be drunk by the flight crews (ethyl alcohol), the sailors were scared crapless to go out in the subs because they would sink all too frequently. And the Soviet Navy and Air Force were like bright shining lights in comparison to the Army boys.

Those 4000 nukes on Russian soil are probably more of a menace to the Russians than to the good ole USA.

(Ducks head, shutdowns computer and goes to bed to avoid reading flames)

 

[Refrozen]

The USSR in the 1970s... Russia in 2009.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

When it comes to military matters, the Russians were a complete bunch of fuckups.

LOL. Visions of crappy broken down Russian tanks fronting as menacing weapons of war rolling into Georgia for propaganda's sake.

 

[hellblazer]

To summarize his opinion on this matter: When it comes to military matters, the Russians were a complete bunch of fuckups. They couldn't fly their planes because the fuel would be drunk by the flight crews (ethyl alcohol), the sailors were scared crapless to go out in the subs because they would sink all too frequently. And the Soviet Navy and Air Force were like bright shining lights in comparison to the Army boys.

You're right. According to most generals, the Georgian invasion was one of the most incompetent things they've ever seen. The Russian Air Force lost so many planes they didn't need to. And yet they still accomplished their military objectives - through sheer volume. You don't always need to be better - you just need to be the last one standing.

The article you quoted doesn't even mention him and everyone from Reagan to McCain have said they want the world to be rid of nuclear weapons.

Um...it's Obama's Secretary of State. She executes Obama's foreign policy choices. Are you really saying Clinton's gone rogue on this concession and Obama is wildly fighting it, without a shred of evidence to back that up?

As for your second argument, ZOMG Reagan and McCain said it was good, so it must be good! It doesn't matter who loves disarming, it's a stupid move.

Maybe you should read the entire article or the replies here. Russia's policies haven't really changed and this was done as muscle flexing, which serves as a counterbalance of sorts to their disarming agreement with the US.

You're basically parroting what the "Russian military analysts" quoted in the article said...no conflict of interest there, right? I mean, if the "Russian military" was a potential threat, then "Russian military analysts" would definitely be trustworthy and honest, right? God, you're so gullible.

 

[Mikesev]

Because there is evil in the world. Real evil. And they would never agree to disarm.They are hellbent on destruction. Why would you give them the upper hand and disarm your superior armory.

Do you seriously, in the core of your heart and brain, believe that? Who exactly out of the nuclear states is 'hellbent on destruction'?

Who out of any state is 'hellbent on destruction'?! What've they done to earn such a terrifying title?

Let's analyse the evil, leaving Russia aside, if they were going to start a war with the US they'd probably have done it already.

Israel- US is their biggest donor.

China- US is their biggest export market.

Britain- Biggest US aircraft carrier.

Pakistan- US is their biggest aid donor.

India- US is their biggest export market.

France- Based on this, probably the most likely out of any to nuke you.


Fear the French.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

Do you seriously, in the core of your heart and brain, believe that? Who exactly out of the nuclear states is 'hellbent on destruction'?

You must have been living under a rock for the past several years.
I for one do not wish to live in a country that can't launch nukes against the likes of Iran and North Korea when they threaten us with theirs.
It's not going to take them very long to get them either.

 

[Mikesev]

You must have been living under a rock for the past several years.
I for one do not wish to live in a country that can't launch nukes against the likes of Iran and North Korea when they threaten us with theirs.
It's not going to take them very long to get them either.

Neither North Korea or Iran have nukes, and neither is close to being able to threaten the US with them even if they did.

But, that small point aside, why would Iran or North Korea launch nuclear weapons against the US, without provocation?

And no, no under a rock, I'm British. I just don't see many states 'hellbent on destruction'.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

I'm British.

Pretty much sums up your view right there.

 

[Mikesev]

Pretty much sums up your view right there.

So you're not actually going to respond constructively then? But do elaborate...

 

[popeye]

Neither North Korea or Iran have nukes, and neither is close to being able to threaten the US with them even if they did.

But, that small point aside, why would Iran or North Korea launch nuclear weapons against the US, without provocation?

And no, no under a rock, I'm British. I just don't see many states 'hellbent on destruction'.

Why would these countries launch a nuclear attack if they could? Really, you can't be serious. Why did nazi Germany march into Poland? Why would Japan ever bomb Pearl Harbor?

There is a million reasons these two countires would "believe" that they have the right to make a move like this. Read more history!

 

[steelwave]

what im seeing is that Venezuela and Cuba and Iran and North Korea and China and im sure a few others are becoming buddies .. also china is giving away money to all sorts of countries... Costa Rica is getting a national stadium from China and today they announced they are creating Costa Ricas first Chinatown

Point being, people are working hard right now building (buying) alliances, that does not includes the Unites States. wonder what happens when china ends up buying up all the countries that combined can replace the income they get from the US as being their main exporter.

Also Venezuela has been purchasing alot of weapons from Russia lately.

I do believe something is going on, just dont know what.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

So you're not actually going to respond constructively then? But do elaborate...

No need to elaborate. You're Euro. Which means you have already biased your opinions as most of you have hated the U.S. as a matter of indoctrination. Having a debate on nuclear stockpiles with you would be fruitless at best. You think we should reduce them (as I am sure you are motivated by the disdain for American Imperialism), I think we should not (I've grown quite comfortable living under the most powerful military on the planet). Leave it at that.

 

[Mikesev]

Why would these countries launch a nuclear attack if they could? Really, you can't be serious. Why did nazi Germany march into Poland? Why would Japan ever bomb Pearl Harbor?

There is a million reasons these two countires would "believe" that they have the right to make a move like this. Read more history!

Germany invaded Poland because there were two million Germans living there and it followed the Lebensraum doctorine, it also undermined Allied strength in central Europe and so they worked with Russia to quickly remove any threat. It was a two pronged invasion, Russia was equally responsible.

Japan's invasion followed from US influence in Manchuria and the Pacific. Could also be argued Roosevelt wanted to justify War in Europe on the Allied side.

Neither example is remotely similar to the countries or situations we're talking about. And to reiterate... neither country has nuclear weapons.

 

[Mikesev]

No need to elaborate. You're Euro. Which means you have already biased your opinions as most of you have hated the U.S. as a matter of indoctrination. Having a debate on nuclear stockpiles with you would be fruitless at best. You think we should reduce them (as I am sure you are motivated by the disdain for American Imperialism), I think we should not (I've grown quite comfortable living under the most powerful military on the planet). Leave it at that.

Interesting, naturally you're wrong, but I won't waste time explaining why.

Genuine question though, did you consider maybe there's an ulterior motive for disarmament? Maybe that the US can't afford the ongoing proliferate military spending and that excess nuclear weapons are a quick and easy way to reduce the outflow?

Did you also ever wonder what would have happened if, just after the end of the war, the US position of economic power hadn't been used for military spending, but instead the surplusses (and later, debt) had been spent on civil projects? Imagine how comfortable life in the US would have been then.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

Interesting, naturally you're wrong, but I won't waste time explaining why.

This further supports my original mention that debating this with you is a waste of my time, and yours.

WF is already teaming with self-righteous Libs. We really don't need any more.

Genuine question though, did you consider maybe there's an ulterior motive for disarmament? Maybe that the US can't afford the ongoing proliferate military spending and that excess nuclear weapons are a quick and easy way to reduce the outflow?

Did you also ever wonder what would have happened if, just after the end of the war, the US position of economic power hadn't been used for military spending, but instead the surplusses (and later, debt) had been spent on civil projects? Imagine how comfortable life in the US would have been then.

I can with all confidence tell you that the world would be a much different place than it is today. America has used that power to protect the world (not just ourselves) from communism and tyranny. I really doubt you would be living as comfortably as you do now if we didn't provide that to you. Quit being so damn ungrateful.

BTW: I have disagreed with your position on this as well as your attempts to tiptoe the debate into a peace sign circle jerk.

 

[Moxie]

Um...it's Obama's Secretary of State. She executes Obama's foreign policy choices. Are you really saying Clinton's gone rogue on this concession and Obama is wildly fighting it, without a shred of evidence to back that up?

As for your second argument, ZOMG Reagan and McCain said it was good, so it must be good! It doesn't matter who loves disarming, it's a stupid move.

You choose to single out Obama as if he came up with some new radical strategy when this has been the official policy of the United States government for years. Obama was 7 years old when the non-proliferation treaty was signed. Both the USA and Russia have less than half the nukes now as they did in 1985.

Only the far left and right think that Obama is going to fly in on his magic unicorn and make it so the USA and/or Russia aren't able to kick major ass.

You're basically parroting what the "Russian military analysts" quoted in the article said...no conflict of interest there, right? I mean, if the "Russian military" was a potential threat, then "Russian military analysts" would definitely be trustworthy and honest, right? God, you're so gullible.

The "college basketball analyst" that was on ESPN today is neither a college or a basketball. He's not a player or student, either.