-Insert Obama Hate Quote Here-

[grabbinpills728]

Feel free to argue with me, but I feel that this country can NOT safely handle another 4 years of Obama's ideals. So I don't start ranting, I'll just hit on one topic right now: Nuclear Disarmament.

I can't phrase it any better than a quote from wnd.com.
“What he has done instead is just reduce our nuclear weapons,” Turner told WND. “The New START Treaty was one where, unusually, he entered into an agreement with Russia whereby only the U.S. was required to reduce its nuclear weapons. Now, he has come forward with looking at whether we should reduce our number of weapons even further without an agreement with anyone, perhaps even unilaterally.At the same time, he has delayed needed investment in our nuclear weapons infrastructure that he had promised the Senate and House he would undertake as part of the ratification for the New START Treaty. Our concern is that we are seeing not just reductions in the nuclear weapons that we have, but also in our capabilities to sustain and produce modern nuclear weapons for a sustained deterrence.”

Feel free to discuss, object, or do anything else in your replies. I thrive on understanding and debating.

[poisin224]

>implying we don't still have enough nukes to destroy the world 10 times over

I did find this though: www.salon.com/2012/10/27/the_progressive_case_against_obama/

"The policy continuity with Bush is a stark contrast to what Obama offered as a candidate. Look at the broken promises from the 2008 Democratic platform: a higher minimum wage, a ban on the replacement of striking workers, seven days of paid sick leave, a more diverse media ownership structure, renegotiation of NAFTA, letting bankruptcy judges write down mortgage debt, a ban on illegal wiretaps, an end to national security letters, stopping the war on whistle-blowers, passing the Employee Free Choice Act, restoring habeas corpus, and labor protections in the FAA bill. Each of these pledges would have tilted bargaining leverage to debtors, to labor, or to political dissidents. So Obama promised them to distinguish himself from Bush, and then went back on his word because these promises didn’t fit with the larger policy arc of shifting American society toward his vision. For sure, Obama believes he is doing the right thing, that his policies are what’s best for society. He is a conservative technocrat, running a policy architecture to ensure that conservative technocrats like him run the complex machinery of the state and reap private rewards from doing so. Radical political and economic inequality is the result. None of these policy shifts, with the exception of TARP, is that important in and of themselves, but together they add up to declining living standards."

[DarthAvarous]

Nuclear disarmament is the least of this country's problems.

www.usdebtclock.org/#

[skwiziks]

Nuclear disarmament isn't a problem.

The nature of war is changing and the utility of nuclear weapons has been greatly lessened by our increasing conflicts with non-state actors who lack the density to justify the use of WMDs. Secondly the political cost of using a nuclear weapon is so high that it would take a series of failures in the administrative branch for nuclear weapons to be used. Third, the increasing economic and political links between industrialized nations means that interstate industrial warfare is counterproductive for all parties involved and would likely produce such a large blowback that any attempt would be cancelled almost immediately. Lastly there has been decades of history demonstrating the tactics and strategies of counter-industrial warfare that have been fairly successful, thereby it is widely known how to fight conventional armies from a place of apparent weakness.

Nuclear weapons may still be useful as a deterrent, but even then I find the cost of their use so great that the threat seems entirely empty.

[DarthAvarous]

I didn't mean I disagreed with you. I should have said: This country has more important concerns than nuclear disarmament. I think that nuclear disarmament is a laudable goal, just not high priority right now.

"the cost of their use so great that the threat seems entirely empty."

You nailed it on the head. Nuclear deterrent is an empty threat. All it takes is one to ruin the world.

[alesand]

Continuing about nuclear weapons, they are simply outdated forms of war just like cavalry and trenches. The best forms of warfare are #1 having many allies and #2 covert agents/assassins.

Having many allies ensures that if you get into a war, they will be involved as well but on your side. They can help provide soldiers and equipment. They can help you continue a war for as long as possible. Those with few to none will not stand against such an onslaught.

Agents/assassins can accomplish more than a soldier and can even prevent his mother country from getting dragged into a war. They can eliminate opposition leaders, get allies into power, and effectively spy and gather information. Why send an army to eliminate a dictator and his party when one or more agents/assassins can get the job done at a cheaper price and while saving of many lives in the process.