Not long after the administration finalized an arms reduction treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, President Obama is now seeking $80 billion in funding for nuclear weapons.
According to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the money would be spent to “rebuild and sustain America’s aging nuclear stockpile.”
The US has one of the two largest arsenals on the planet, some 5,113 warheads, a holdover from the Cold War arms race with the former Soviet Union.
Despite very public efforts to declare himself an advocate of total nuclear disarmament, President Obama has made no secret of his ambitions for an updated nuclear stockpile, ostensibly for “safety” reasons.
But in reality, an arsenal capable of wiping out much of the life on the planet is never really safe, and questions about the military’s handling of the arsenal are nothing new. Likewise it is difficult to argue, in a post Cold War world, that the US truly needs such an enormous arsenal merely for “deterrence.”
Yet for the administration selling the case for new nuclear weapons will likely have a relatively easy time of it, particularly with the illusion of Obama’s bona fides on disarmament looming large in the background.
Abridge is not abridge, less is more, and disarmament is a whole slew of new nuclear weapons.
Logic is logic that's all I say.
Say it ain't so…………..
I'd like a constitutional amendment, where we'd have the choice of voting for one of the candidates, or for "None". If "None" got more votes than any candidate, the parties would have to try to run some more acceptable to us. Yes I did vote for Obama, but only as the lessor of 2 evils. I'd have liked the choice of "None"
That was exactly the old Soviet electoral procedure–one party, one candidate, and a yes or no vote.
That is still the Chinese procedure last time one looked.
The West has mocked this system interminably as rubber stamp but it was not rubberstamp at all.
The Communists took no votes very seriously–and some candidates would be replaced even if they had only a large number short of "no's" quite short of a majority.
Doesn't sound much different then the way we conduct our elections, or the ones we rig in the foreign countries we have bombed into submission.
The "Lesser of two evils" is still evil isn't it?
Voters should think about that folly when voting in this next, "last chance for ther country" election.
The day I realized was this assclown was going to be anointed emperor, or if Killary Klingon even – long before the primaries BTW – I said to my myself and anyone who would listen, "just watch: this scumbag is going to attack Pakistan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Congo, possibly Iran, and WILL start a Global Thermo-Nuclear War". With minor variations, he has been following the script to a tee.
Bush/Cheney in comparison were downright DOVES, inept as they were.
If I hear one more person describe this fool as "the lesser of two evils" I'm going to vomit. Other viable and far more worthy choices were available: Ron Paul, Nader, etc.
Obama is not a peacenik? But gosh he won the nobel Peace Prize! Well its almost the summer and I will worry about Nukes next fall…oh but then it will be Football season. I will worry about nukes next year I promise.
He isn't the lesser of two evils. Check history. Democrats in office get away with a lot worse behavior, because they face NO opposition. Watch as Obama takes the first successful shot at destroying Social Security, now that he's gotten away with attacking Medicare. If a Democrat can get away with attacking the ultimate sacred cows of their party, what can they NOT get away with?
A Dem faces no limits. That makes them far more dangerous than the worst Republican.
Sign the 'treaty'- check. Get more cash for 'nukes'- check. Still in the Iraqnam- check. Yeah, "change" you can believe in.
Let's spend billions we don't have building nukes we don't need to protect us against imaginary enemies. Good plan, Barack.
At the risk of stating the obvious, our president is a liar, murderer, and war criminal.
The reason is that the Pentagon aims to achieve a disarming and unanswerable first-strike capability. On the new missiles to be deployed on ships in the Black Sea in Bulgaria and on land in Romania and Poland former Trident missile engineer Bob Aldridge-www.plrc.org-commented, "Whether on ships or land, they are still a necessary component for an unanswerable first strike".
That´s the highest form of insanity: The Pentagon aims to achieve a disarming and unanswerable first-strike capability. Nuclear Winter doesn´t seem to matter. And the obvious answer of Launch On Warning doesn´t seem to matter. According to former Trident missile engineer Bob Aldridge-www.plrc.org-the US Navy can track and destroy all enemy submarines simultaneously and Minuteman-3 and Trident-2 D5 get an accuracy of 30 meters or less, enough to destroy any hard target. The bloody fools in the Pentagon actually force the other side to make a Launch On Warning-sorry! mistake.
Obama should take his administration for a walk in the forest – perhaps the money is growing on trees.
The people are getting pale, what with the leeches and vampires sucking our blood and keeping it in off shore accounts for a rainy day.