Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    inst,

    I'm curious, why would Obama do this? He seems generally to be a smart guy; what would be the benefit of mutual nuclear disarmament? Is he trying to encourage a multi-polar world? Or is this a ruse; and the precision-guided US nuclear arsenal has already achieved overkill?
    when it comes to nukes, we're looking at a cost-benefit bell curve...or less academically, the goldilocks method: not too few (poor deterrence) nor not too many (overkill and financial drain).

    for the US this is a particularly hard calculation, because we have two opposing factors. first is that we need to extend a nuclear umbrella over allied nations. yet the other factor is that US conventional strength is such that a nuclear arms race actually restricts US freedom of action.

    i don't mind a modest further reduction in nukes but i would like to see comprehensive modernization of our nuclear branch. i'm actually not sure why obama's so obsessed with the question of nukes; given the little room for further reductions, this is political capital spent for relatively little gain.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by astralis View Post
      i'm actually not sure why obama's so obsessed with the question of nukes; given the little room for further reductions, this is political capital spent for relatively little gain.
      You're...not sure? Really? I thought my post on the first page was a good explanation. It's clear to ME.

      Here's some more that may go a ways to explaining it:

      Power Line - Paul Rahe: Obama's gestures, part 3

      Comment


      • #33
        I have a question. Can the President embark on a unilateral disarmament? Can the Houses stop him?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          I have a question. Can the President embark on a unilateral disarmament? Can the Houses stop him?
          1) Yes, he can. I think he IS, because 'unilateral' means he is doing it without reference to what anybody else does. See 'slashing nuke stockpile'; see also 'withdrawing from missile shield agreement'. See also his broken promise on Afghanistan (coming soon).

          2) Not unless they impeach him, and it won't happen, until the GOP regains control of both chambers AND cowboys up enough to actually do it.

          The only way to get through the next three and a half years with a decent shot at surviving the next thirty is ofr the opposition party to fight a delaying action, to slow-roll Obama on every single thing he's going to try to do to wreck the country. It puts the GOP in the bad position of opposing the President on every defense and foreign policy goal, which has immense costs to the United States by itself. But it may be the only possible option when the President is determined to be the leftie crank that he so obviously always was and always will be.

          Comment


          • #35
            Well, THIS is nauseating...but it's what I have been telling everybody here for the past few years:

            Liberal Blogger Admits: We Claimed to Support "The Good War" in Afghanistan as Political Strategy to Prove Our "Macho" Credentials; We Never Meant It
            —Ace
            Yes, so I imagined. While Glenn Greenwald, for example, was accusing those on the right of being "chickenhawks" for not serving in Iraq, he was never quite able to explain why he wasn't accumulating Congressional Medals of Honor and Taliban tooth-necklaces in the war he supposedly supported, Afghanistan.

            The liberal blog Hullaballoo admits what has been obvious all along.

            And no, this isn't just about some seedy, nasty liberal bloggers.

            It's about our lying POS POTUS, too.

            Escalation is a bad idea. The Democrats backed themselves into defending the idea of Afghanistan being The Good War because they felt they needed to prove their macho bonafides they called for withdrawal from Iraq. Nobody asked too many questions sat the time, including me. But none of us should forget that it was a political strategy, not a serious foreign policy.
            There have been many campaign promises "adjusted" since the election. There is no reason that the administration should feel any more bound to what they said about this than all the other committments [sic] it has blithely turned aside in the interest of "pragmatism."

            But none of us should forget that it was a political strategy, not a serious foreign policy.

            You claimed to support a war in which American soldiers were fighting and dying, leaving friends and limbs on the battlefield, as a cynical political strategy?

            You... um... voiced support of a real serious-as-death war to cadge votes out of a duped public?

            We won't forget, champ. And we won't let you forget, either.

            Again we see a leftist projecting his pathological darkness on to others. They accused Bush of fighting wars for this very reason. And now, when it's safe to say so (they think), they concede: We supported a war for the reason we accused Bush of doing so for 8 years.
            Everything I've been saying about Democrats and the danger they pose to their own country is true. It simply cannot be denied, and I'm not giving an inch, here, ban me or not: they are and always have been a domestic enemy.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
              The only way to get through the next three and a half years with a decent shot at surviving the next thirty is ofr the opposition party to fight a delaying action, to slow-roll Obama on every single thing he's going to try to do to wreck the country. It puts the GOP in the bad position of opposing the President on every defense and foreign policy goal, which has immense costs to the United States by itself. But it may be the only possible option when the President is determined to be the leftie crank that he so obviously always was and always will be.
              Keith,

              Are we seeing the same Obama? This Canuckian is not seeing the almighty cult of personality you're seeing. Thus far, he's been put in his corner by Moscow and Tehran ... and Islamabad.

              Surely there are those in your chambers who can be better A-jads than A-jad.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                Thank God for good men.
                At least the SecDef, a Cold War veteran recognizes the validity of the original concepts of nuclear strategy, arsenals and their relation to arms control. I hope that the values and analysis of President Obama doesn't outrun the SecDef's.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Equilibrium View Post
                  At least the SecDef, a Cold War veteran recognizes the validity of the original concepts of nuclear strategy, arsenals and their relation to arms control. I hope that the values and analysis of President Obama doesn't outrun the SecDef's.
                  Check the org chart. Obama's got a bigger chair. He gets his way, and SecDef will do what he's dam' well told by a man that has never had any use for or even anything good to say about the department SecDef runs.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Im suprised Obama can just unilaterally decide to scrap the missile shield.

                    Doesnt he have to put it to a vote in congress?

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X