Obama Mulls 80 Percent Disarmament

excessive reduction in arms would potentially invite the cold war to start back up

---

It's a delicate balancing act. You need to keep a sensible stockpile and use it as necessary
(a ballistic missile sub is a remarkably good deterrent).

I'd put more funds into intelligence and special operation forces
(SEALs, and Special Forces, for example).

Last I checked - that's what the President and the joint chiefs have called for.

It's one of the few sensible parts of the budget. (a half trillion proposed reduction).

Not really surprised ---- Panetta was a budget chief for quite some time.

Soulshiner wrote: The Cold War is over. Has been for 20 years. Time to have a defense strategy that is appropriate to our current world. Good job President Obama.

The old bromide is that generals always prepare for the last war. Now that we are converting to a terrorist fighting military, I wonder what kind of war will pop up. Fighting with China as it invades Taiwan? Hundreds of different possibilities.

Rush Limbaugh today said the US peaked with 12,000 nuclear weapons in the 1980's and now Obama is planning to cut them down to 300.

With MIRV, how many nukes are on a US sub? Talk about a real draw down.

Soulshiner wrote: The Cold War is over. Has been for 20 years. Time to have a defense strategy that is appropriate to our current world. Good job President Obama.

Good job?! Finally getting around to kind of, sort of fulfilling a campaign promise three plus years later by floating a proposal to reduce nukes? Strictly one more move in an attempt to convince the sheep to reelect Barry.

Maintaining the infrastructure to safely and securely manufacture, store, and refurbish nukes is unquestionably expensive and we have way more than we need, a reduction in the number of nukes is needed. If Barry was serious he would have attacked this issue early on instead of trying to save his skin in the last months of his term as POTUS.

Otis -
I figure he tossed a bone to the granola and birkenstock crowd........

Barry Obama - president of peace.

He'll be viewed as the one person serious about peace - even though the arsenal was reduced well over half (85 percent, in fact) through the work of treaties signed by the Bushes.

bailey bud wrote: Otis -
I figure he tossed a bone to the granola and birkenstock crowd........

Barry Obama - president of peace.

He'll be viewed as the one person serious about peace - even though the arsenal was reduced well over half (85 percent, in fact) through the work of treaties signed by the Bushes.

I'm sure this proposal is playing well across the country in places that look and stink like the Peoples Republic of Boulder and Nederland. I can hear Barry now "I tried to make the world a more peaceful place and I tired to fix the economy and... But W left me a mess that I couldn't fix in one term."

bailey bud wrote: I'd put more funds into intelligence and special operation forces
(SEALs, and Special Forces, for example).

:thumbsup: And lots of armed UAVs.

bailey bud wrote: Even if there are no corresponding reductions from other would-be adversaries - I do not think a reduction in strategic nuclear weapons would compromise the security of the USA.

Let's disarm on them....on the middle east.

Agreed, RT!

Libs/leftist just don't get it!

I love it... They can't decide if they are outraged because a bunch of unnecessary nukes are being phased out, or if they are outraged because he isn't doing it fast enough... Better go check with the blogs and find out which one it is...

FredHayek wrote: Rush Limbaugh today said the US peaked with 12,000 nuclear weapons in the 1980's and now Obama is planning to cut them down to 300.

Rush, once again, doesn't know what he's talking about. We peaked in 1967 with 31,255 warheads. You'd think he could at least use google.