MoltenRock
Topic Author
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:43 am

Today the US President said that Sarah Palin is a rube regarding nuclear policy and he is right. Why more US progressives don't taunt these "conservatives" that have no education, no experience, and hypocrisy flowing forth, with facts and history is beyond me. Obama also got in a nice jab on how dysfunctional the US Senate is with Republican obstructionism.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_zSBtx76B8


I mean seriously, who can take anyone who likens America's nuclear policy being akin to "schoolyard bullies"? More importantly however, this new treaty is a great achievement. Both Reagan and Bush Sr. pushed hard on nukes being eliminated. Obama is continuing this policy of eliminating nukes and is signing a treaty no different than anything Reagan / Bush Sr. wouldn't have been proud of signing and passing.

There is no difference whatsoever today post signing than there was under Reagan/Bush Sr. in their efforts to cutting the nuclear stockpiles that the USA / Russia have pointed at each other and in each other's armories. Holding on to these disgusting weapons costs tens of billions of $$$ for both countries, as well as leaves "loose nukes" out there for terrorist groups to gain control of. The USA, Russia, and the rest of the world can rest just a little bit easier as we eliminate these deadly and dangerous weapons. Regardless of your political affiliation you cannot deny this is a welcomed step forward in ridding the world of these awful nightmarish weapons.

Or as Reagan said it best perhaps: "I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete."

[Edited 2010-04-09 01:47:33]
 
kaitak
Posts: 8934
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:51 am

Hardly a surprise; Sarah Palin is on the wrong side of almost everything!
 
User avatar
OA260
Posts: 20983
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:50 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:00 am

Why do people even give that ''pig'' air time. She should be making cookies in her kitchen at home.
 
MoltenRock
Topic Author
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:21 am

Looks like Japan is quite in favor of this new treaty. (No surprise really as everyone here in Asia for the most part is happy with less death dealing nukes.)

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-04/09/c_13243825.htm



Quoting oa260 (Reply 2):
Why do people even give that ''pig'' air time. She should be making cookies in her kitchen at home.

She's an expert on Russian relations since she can "see Russia from her house". LOL!

Gotta love her "expertise" in the "end all and be all of nuclear weaponry" of rambling nonsense when she was asked about it in the debates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PIzfXrQk-Y

And who can forget her "duh...... I don't know" response when being asked about the Bush doctrine and nuclear weapons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDdPnKjFhpA&feature=related

[Edited 2010-04-09 02:23:42]
 
flybaurlax
Posts: 588
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:34 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:24 am

Quoting oa260 (Reply 2):
Why do people even give that ''pig'' air time. She should be making cookies in her kitchen at home.

But what you're suggesting is that she has an actual useful skill!
Boilerup! Go Purdue!
 
tk747
Posts: 288
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:53 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:42 am

My god this woman really is a moron.
 
kappel
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:48 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 11:03 am

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 3):
No surprise really as everyone here in Asia for the most part is happy with less death dealing nukes

The thing is, even with this arms reduction, the US and Russia still have more than enough nukes (about 1,500 each IIRC) to obliterate us all. So while I do think it's a good step, it's nowhere close to making either country free of nuclear arms. So it will also not make the US "weaker" or anything like that.
L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8527
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:14 pm

Actually the OP forgot to quote the best response Obama had for Palin: "If the charmain of the Joint Chiefs is OK with it, then I'm going to take advice from him over Sarah Palin".

Once again, her handlers seem to be a complete PR train wreck - it never fails.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9800
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:40 pm

Quoting MoltenRock (Thread starter):

I mean seriously, who can take anyone who likens America's nuclear policy being akin to "schoolyard bullies"? More importantly however, this new treaty is a great achievement.

First of all, the policy Palin was criticizing has nothing to do with the treaty. As far as I know, she has not said anything about the treaty (Although I hardly follow her every word).

Her criticism was on the reversal of a policy that has been in place for half a century - that if anyone hits the US with a weapon of mass destruction, our baseline response will be with nuclear weapons (since we don't have bio or chems).

This policy has always been intended to intimidate those nations who might not be able to challenge us militarily, but feel that they might be able to get away with an attack and then hide behind their civilian population. This is more of a danger today than ever before. The policy told them that if you use a WMD on us, we will turn your cities into glass parking lots, and are not going to screw around with trying to find the specific persons responsible, surgical strikes and so forth. Anyone hitting us with WMDs will get WMDs right back.

By removing this policy, there is no question that it will encourage a WMD attack from anyone who can manage to pull it together. Obama has now said that in response to a WMD attack, we are going to respond exactly in the same way as we responded to 9/11 - a long, drawn out, expensive, politically unpopular attempt to go in after the guilty party on the ground. Or else we ask for a condemnation vote in the UN...
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8527
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:29 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
By removing this policy, there is no question that it will encourage a WMD attack from anyone who can manage to pull it together.

Take it up with the SecDef then. Where was this kind of complaint when his predecessor was claiming we could kick ass all over the ME on the cheap?
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:29 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
US with a weapon of mass destruction, our baseline response will be with nuclear weapons (since we don't have bio or chems)

Are you suggesting we should?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
a long, drawn out, expensive, politically unpopular attempt to go in after the guilty party on the ground

Isnt that the way we were told by God to act?
Step into my office, baby
 
JakeOrion
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:13 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:30 pm

And we care about this woman because...?
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:34 pm

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 11):
And we care about this woman because...?

Why do we care about John and Kate Gosslin? Why do care about Octo-mom? Why do we care about Bradgelina?

Entertainment.
Step into my office, baby
 
JakeOrion
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:13 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:38 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 12):
Why do we care about John and Kate Gosslin?

Who?

Quoting mt99 (Reply 12):
Why do care about Octo-mom?

Huh? I ignored her the first day that was published.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 12):
Why do we care about Bradgelina?

I don't, why do you?

Quoting mt99 (Reply 12):
Entertainment.

Ahhh, well, this particular "entertainment" is stupid to me.

So, what else you got?
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:40 pm

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 13):
Ahhh, well, this particular "entertainment" is stupid to me.

Yet we find you in this thread...
Step into my office, baby
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9800
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:44 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 9):
Take it up with the SecDef then. Where was this kind of complaint when his predecessor was claiming we could kick ass all over the ME on the cheap?

Exactly the point. They know that we won't want to repeat that experience. If we were to do this all over again since 9/11, maybe it would have been a better idea to turn Kandahar or Kabul into a smoking crater, not bother with ground troops, and make a general announcement, "don't attack us again". (I'm not saying that's what we should have done - but that it might have been a preferable alternative to the 8 years of crap we've had to deal with.)

So they know we won't invade another ME country. Now they know we won't take the other extreme option either. What's left? All I can see is the half-assed measures that led to 9/11 in the first place, what GWB once called, "firing a $10 million missile to hit a camel in the ass".

Sorry, but this does not show that we have learned many lessons over the past decade.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 10):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
US with a weapon of mass destruction, our baseline response will be with nuclear weapons (since we don't have bio or chems)

Are you suggesting we should?

Not necessarily. But the option should be on the table, and Obama has now unilaterally taken it off.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 10):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
a long, drawn out, expensive, politically unpopular attempt to go in after the guilty party on the ground

Isnt that the way we were told by God to act?

WTF does that have to do with anything. We live in the real world, and our government's policy should be to defend our citizens and our interests. All other considerations come second or less.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
JakeOrion
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:13 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:44 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 14):
Yet we find you in this thread...

True, but somebody has to attempt to stop the hate.  
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:49 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 15):
WTF does that have to do with anything. We live in the real world, and our government's policy should be to defend our citizens and our interests. All other considerations come second or less.

Isn't that the policy of EVERY government? even the ones you don't like?
Step into my office, baby
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9800
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:07 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 17):
Isn't that the policy of EVERY government? even the ones you don't like?

Yes, and going out of our way, spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of our soldiers' lives to invade a country on the other side of the globe, fighting with one hand tied behind us in order to minimize collateral damage among a foreign population was the calculation made 8 years ago. Was the calculation correct? Was it worth it? Using the benefit of hindsight, what other alternatives might have been more productive? Nuking the whole country? Harsher rules of engagement similar to post-WWII 1945 and 46, where if anyone took a shot at an allied soldier in Germany after the surrender, the troops would be pulled out, artillery called in and the town would be leveled. Not many people remember that, but it worked. What about a purely diplomatic effort?

The point is that we put an awful lot of emphasis on trying to minimize casualties among innocent civilians - more so than in any armed conflict in history. Did that prove to be counterproductive?
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6580
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:08 pm

Quoting MoltenRock (Thread starter):
Or as Reagan said it best perhaps: "I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete."

My guess is he was urging the scientific community to work on the technology for The Star Wars space based defense. By the way, did you know, that under the new treaty, if the US decided to deploy a missile shield, the treaty would be void? Yet, Obama signed it.

Let see what The Senate says.

As for the our new policy:

What we have effectively told the world is: that you don't have to develop nuclear weapons to attack and hurt us. In fact, comply with the non-proliferation treaties, it will strengthen your hand. Go ahead and develop, deploy and employ chemical and/or biological weapons (which are probably a whole lot cheaper and easier to make, store and use). Our only response will be a conventional one. See, we don't stock chemical and biological weapons in any real usable quantity. Have a go at us.

Our threat to the use of any WMD against us has always been retaliation by a nuclear attack. You all remember the doctrine mutual assured destruction, right? It wasn't only a doctrine aimed at the Soviets, it was aimed against any nation that felt the need to threaten us with any WMD.

The elimination of nuclear weapons will not come because eberyone decides that they are big, bad, evil weapons that should never be employed, ever again. The way to rid the world of nuclear weapons is to develop technology that renders them useless. Even then, that technology will only work against the delivery systems. The warheads themselves will continue to exist. The technology will always be there and, as such, we will always be susceptible to a nuclear device. The genie is out of the bottle, and we will never be able to fully contain it.
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8527
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:14 pm

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 19):
What we have effectively told the world is: that you don't have to develop nuclear weapons to attack and hurt us.

I just don't see the logic in that kind of take on this when we have no intention of drawing down to a ready level of 500 or less warheads at any point in the next 30 years. That's still two or more for every country on the Earth - what more do you want?
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9800
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:17 pm

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 19):

My guess is he was urging the scientific community to work on the technology for The Star Wars space based defense. By the way, did you know, that under the new treaty, if the US decided to deploy a missile shield, the treaty would be void? Yet, Obama signed it.

I did not know that. I haven't had the time to follow the news very closely in the past week - my company is being acquired and I am neck deep in paperwork.

But that is a terrible development. Shall we sign a treaty that says our troops are no longer authorized to wear body armor? How about removal of armor from our tanks and other vehicles? How does removing purely defensive capability make us safer?

BTW, how much credit did anyone give GWB for unilaterally reducing the US stockpile of nuclear weapons by over 60% some years ago, basically embarrassing the Russians into agreeing to follow suit?

[Edited 2010-04-09 07:20:23]
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6580
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:24 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 20):
I just don't see the logic in that kind of take on this when we have no intention of drawing down to a ready level of 500 or less warheads at any point in the next 30 years. That's still two or more for every country on the Earth - what more do you want?

But, according to our new policy (not the treaty Obama just signed), our nuclear arsenal (whether 500 or 50,000 warheads) means nothing if you've complied with the non-proliferation treaty and have not attacked us with nuclear weapons. Have at us with chemical and biological weapons, we will not fire a nuclear weapon at you.

The draw-down treaty is a seperate issue, though the timing is interesting.
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:25 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 20):
That's still two or more for every country on the Earth - what more do you want?

Three I suppose!!!!!    The objections are astonishing. A little more controversial, but so far never, ever, mentioned is how countries not in conformity with the Non P T will be assessed. A couple of interesting cases come to mind and they are at present liable to the full works. Interesting.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9800
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:30 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 23):
Three I suppose!!!!! The objections are astonishing.

I don't see many people objecting to the number of weapons. I don't see anyone needing more than a couple hundred (and most of those are simply for placement purposes, not for actual use). What people are complaining about is the no-use policy in response to a WMD attack.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6580
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:31 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 21):
I did not know that. I haven't had the time to follow the news very closely in the past week - my company is being acquired and I am neck deep in paperwork.

But that is a terrible development. Shall we sign a treaty that says our troops are no longer authorized to wear body armor? How about removal of armor from our tanks and other vehicles? How does removing purely defensive capability make us safer?
The Russian government issued a statement yesterday reiterating its position that it reserved the right to withdraw from the START Treaty if there was a “qualitative or quantitative” buildup of a U.S. missile defense.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601092&sid=afb35sokOc5g
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9800
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:37 pm

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 25):
The Russian government issued a statement yesterday reiterating its position that it reserved the right to withdraw from the START Treaty if there was a “qualitative or quantitative” buildup of a U.S. missile defense.

Then my question is what is the threat to us if Russia does not sign the treaty, or drops out of it? I'm not worried too much about Russia. They have no interest in attacking the US militarily, and they have no death-wish.

I say forget the treaty - we don't need it. It's like signing a mutual draw-down treaty with Australia - pointless.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8527
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:47 pm

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 22):
Have at us with chemical and biological weapons, we will not fire a nuclear weapon at you.

This is still completely illogical line of thought. Whatever the treaty says, you really expect our response will be in accordance with it? What's on paper and what happens after a short conversation on the red phone are two completely different things. There is nothing in precedent to suggest otherwise and you're in hysterics to the contrary. Realpolitik strategy depends on two things - practical power (i.e. ability to apply force) and political maneuvering. This treaty effort is obviously the latter - why can't you see that? They are trying to lead the world by example by steering the conversation about nuclear force application.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 26):
I say forget the treaty - we don't need it. It's like signing a mutual draw-down treaty with Australia - pointless.

Well not pointless really, as Baroque elucidated with the mention of the two countries that this new treaty specifically points a finger at. You think there's no point to making a political move with Russia's backing that takes some wind out of the blustery sails of rhetoric in Tehran? You're not thinking big picture.

[Edited 2010-04-09 07:48:20]
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6580
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:11 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 27):
This is still completely illogical line of thought. Whatever the treaty says, you really expect our response will be in accordance with it? What's on paper and what happens after a short conversation on the red phone are two completely different things

Then why make the statement? Why the policy change? Because, if he has no intention of following his new policy, he is lying to the world to make himself look like a progressive leader with properly progressive thoughts on nuclear policy.


Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 27):
There is nothing in precedent to suggest otherwise and you're in hysterics to the contrary.

See, I'm not in hysterics, because I do understand what you have stated: when the rubber hits the road (or in this case, the chem/bio weapon hits the US), we will do whatever is necessary, including a nuclear response to secure our survival. But, the question still stands, why would he lie to the world in this way?
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:13 pm

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 28):
why would he lie to the world in this way?

Are really concerned about politicians lying?

You see in the land of unicorns and rainbows...
Step into my office, baby
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8527
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:20 pm

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 28):
But, the question still stands, why would he lie to the world in this way?

Read the second post in the response. Strategic policy changes are standard procedure for leveraging your position when confrontations are afoot - Russia is newly onboard with opposition to Iran's activities - they'll play up what's necessary in the media over START (which is mostly for domestic consumption anyway) but at the end of the day they want what we want - as a growing player and consumer in the oil business they want stable market in the Middle East that isn't threatened by the arms race Iran threatens to instigate. Is that so hard to follow?
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
MoltenRock
Topic Author
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:34 pm

To clarify for people, Obama signed the start of the START II treaty with the Russian president yesterday.

On the same day the Nuclear Posture Review (the third since the end of the Cold War) was released which "limits" the circumstances under which the United States might use nuclear weapons, with stated a long-term goal of achieving a nuclear-free world. This is a policy only, and not legally binding.

The two have nothing to do with one another other than a stated goal of eliminating nukes and making news of the day.

The US does indeed have chemical weapons and openly so, much less what the US keeps on the down-low. The US will continue to have them until 2023 at the current rate. Does anyone really think having chemical and/or threats of using chemical weapons is a deterrent?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing.../2006-11-20-chemical-weapons_x.htm

Additionally, anyone today that would use a nuclear device as an official state government would become an instant pariah overnight, and that includes the United States. That nation would face global condemnation and more than likely a complete cut off of trade, relations, and exports. Getting rid of the reason nations need nukes is the only way to reduce the threat of having more and more loose nukes and non-nuclear countries from seeking them at all costs.

Did the old policy stop Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and other countries from seeking, developing, and deploying nuclear weapons? Nope! So let's keep the silly rhetoric about Obama making America "less safe" where it belongs....... FAUX news echo chambers.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11090
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:52 pm

Quoting MoltenRock (Thread starter):
More importantly however, this new treaty is a great achievement.

I don't think so. I really do not think this makes any country safer from nuclear attack. Does anyone else think that if the US suffers a nuclear attack that it is more likely to come from the back of a truck than the front of an ICBM? This treaty might make it even more dangerous, if some enterprising soldier wants to make a little cash on the side.

Quoting MoltenRock (Thread starter):
Regardless of your political affiliation you cannot deny this is a welcomed step forward in ridding the world of these awful nightmarish weapons.

I don't think so. Peace through superior firepower.

Quoting MoltenRock (Thread starter):
as well as leaves "loose nukes" out there for terrorist groups to gain control of.

And now we are moving them and taking them off the books. It seems far too easy to make one disappear.

And for that matter, the physics is no secret. Pretty much any country can make one if they have some smart people, money, and some time.



Quoting tk747 (Reply 5):
My god this woman really is a moron.

  

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
By removing this policy, there is no question that it will encourage a WMD attack from anyone who can manage to pull it together.

The most likely people to "pull it together" probably don't care.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 21):
How does removing purely defensive capability make us safer?

Only in a case of a mutually assured destruction standoff. One must allow their citizens to be hostages or risk provoking an attack. This school of thought seems pretty dead though.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 25):
The Russian government issued a statement yesterday reiterating its position that it reserved the right to withdraw from the START Treaty if there was a “qualitative or quantitative” buildup of a U.S. missile defense.

Sounds like they are stuck in the '50s.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6580
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:11 pm

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 31):
Additionally, anyone today that would use a nuclear device as an official state government would become an instant pariah overnight, and that includes the United States

So let's say Iran or North Korea or any other state were to pop a nuke in Europe or Asia or in the US, you do not feel that a measured response to reduce any remaining nuclear stockpile or the ability to make more nuclear weapons necessary? Will we just go after sanctions and say "now don't do that again or we'll really get mad and cut off your ...."?

What about a chemical or biological weapon that renders a city or region uninhabitable? What then?

I'm sorry, I don't live in a rose colored world where everything is black and white and where you take anything off the table.
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:14 pm

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 33):
rose colored world where everything is black and white

"A rose colored world where everything is black and white"... is that a Sarah Palin Qoute?
Step into my office, baby
 
NIKV69
Posts: 10889
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:18 pm

Quoting MoltenRock (Thread starter):
Today the US President said that Sarah Palin is a rube regarding nuclear policy and he is right

What makes Obama an expert in nuclear policy exactly?
Hey that guy with the private jet can bail us out! Why? HE CAN AFFORD IT!
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8527
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:25 pm

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 35):

What makes Obama an expert in nuclear policy exactly?

Daily briefings from the DoD, JCS, and various intelligence agencies. That would bring just about any reasonably intelligent person up to speed well above the knowledge of the rest of us, no?

As far as I can tell, Ms. Palin does not have access to such information.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:25 pm

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 35):
What makes Obama an expert in nuclear policy exactly?
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 7):
If the charmain of the Joint Chiefs is OK with it, then I'm going to take advice from him over Sarah Palin".

Joints Chiefs vs Sarah Palin in Nuclear Policy? Who would you choose?
Step into my office, baby
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8527
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:28 pm

Case in point: this strategy has already pulled one marginalized rabbit out of the hutch:

Miffed by Obama's move, North Korea accused his government of being no better than the Bush administration, "hell-bent on posing a nuclear threat" to North Korea, and said it would not give up its atomic weapons.

"As long as the U.S. nuclear threat persists, (North Korea) will increase and update various type nuclear weapons as its deterrent in such a manner as it deems necessary in the days ahead," the official Korean Central News Agency quoted


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_re_as/as_nkorea_parliament
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:30 pm

And this President is more of an expert on nuclear technology and weapons how?

Quoting MoltenRock (Thread starter):
Obama is continuing this policy of eliminating nukes and is signing a treaty no different than anything Reagan / Bush Sr. wouldn't have been proud of signing and passing.

   This treaty is different in that it limits delivery vehicles as well as warheads, something neither Reagan or Bush would have agreed too. It also restricts all development. That matters because new technology that could make those weapons safer from unauthorized use is also restricted. It also allows the Russians the option to just walk away from treaty if they don't like the way we pursue missle defense. While the reduction in warheads on both sides is laudable, the rest of the treaty is a boon for the Russians and a detrement to the United States. The President just gave away two of our important assets for nothing in return.

Quoting MoltenRock (Thread starter):
Or as Reagan said it best perhaps: "I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete."

He was talking about missile defense, star wars, something the left has been ridiculing him for ever since. Funny how that now turns into a selling point when a liberal President is giving away our strong points.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
slider
Posts: 6805
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:33 pm

Quoting MoltenRock (Thread starter):
Both Reagan and Bush Sr. pushed hard on nukes being eliminated.

Don’t mischaracterize Reagan. He believed and pursued vigorously “peace through strength” and even though he sought to reduce nukes, it was only if it DID NOT compromise our position of strength.

That is absolutely polar to what Obama is doing now. He’s unilaterally disarming and expressing a heretofore never uttered nuclear policy. It was Pax Americana that helped keep peace throughout the Cold War, make no mistake.

This is just one more step in the wrong direction, toward appeasement, toward voluntary abdication of sovereignty, of expressing the very real sense of weakness at a time when America needs to be strong in the world. It’s regressing and history will ultimately be the judge.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:46 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 36):
Daily briefings from the DoD, JCS, and various intelligence agencies. That would bring just about any reasonably intelligent person up to speed well above the knowledge of the rest of us, no?

No. As a matter of fact the SecDef is on record as saying we need to build a new technology warhead.

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=162423

The reliable replacement warhead, known as the RRW, which Congress has refused to fund despite repeated requests from the Bush administration, would not require nuclear testing -- in contrast to today’s high-performance designs with their low margins for error. It would use more plutonium or enriched uranium and deliver a lower explosive yield for a warhead of a given size and weight.

Gates declared his support for the RRW in October, saying that “there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program.”


Obivously the President decided to ignore his SecDef.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 37):
Joints Chiefs vs Sarah Palin in Nuclear Policy? Who would you choose?

Can you post a link showing where the Joint Chiefs support this treaty?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
texan
Posts: 4059
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:50 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
By removing this policy, there is no question that it will encourage a WMD attack from anyone who can manage to pull it together. Obama has now said that in response to a WMD attack, we are going to respond exactly in the same way as we responded to 9/11 - a long, drawn out, expensive, politically unpopular attempt to go in after the guilty party on the ground. Or else we ask for a condemnation vote in the UN...

The treaty actually allows for the U.S. to unilaterally withdraw from that part of the treaty if we are attacked by biological or chemical weapons, or for any other reason we see fit. Article XIV, point 3. Really, all this treaty does is help reach Reagan's goal of reducing U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals by a minimum of 33%. So I don't understand what the fuss is about, since we keep the overwhelming majority of our weapons and can use them in case of an attack against us.

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
flanker
Posts: 1407
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:42 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:58 pm

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 35):
What makes Obama an expert in nuclear policy exactly?

He is an expert just like he is expert at throwing a baseball. A disgrace.

Quoting Slider (Reply 40):
Don’t mischaracterize Reagan. He believed and pursued vigorously “peace through strength” and even though he sought to reduce nukes, it was only if it DID NOT compromise our position of strength.

That is absolutely polar to what Obama is doing now. He’s unilaterally disarming and expressing a heretofore never uttered nuclear policy. It was Pax Americana that helped keep peace throughout the Cold War, make no mistake.

This is just one more step in the wrong direction, toward appeasement, toward voluntary abdication of sovereignty, of expressing the very real sense of weakness at a time when America needs to be strong in the world. It’s regressing and history will ultimately be the judge.

  

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 24):
What people are complaining about is the no-use policy in response to a WMD attack.

     
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9800
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:02 pm

Quoting texan (Reply 42):
Really, all this treaty does is help reach Reagan's goal of reducing U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals by a minimum of 33%. So I don't understand what the fuss is about, since we keep the overwhelming majority of our weapons and can use them in case of an attack against us.

GWB reduced it by 60%. Big deal. The amount of the stockpile is not really at issue here.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19604
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:06 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
Her criticism was on the reversal of a policy that has been in place for half a century - that if anyone hits the US with a weapon of mass destruction, our baseline response will be with nuclear weapons (since we don't have bio or chems).

And why should we hit with a nuke when we have far better weapons?

We have megatons upon megatons of conventional weaponry that don't leave a radioactive mess behind. We can put guided missiles through open windows.

The next country to hit the U.S. will be a totalitarian dictatorship in which the civilians are opposed to their government. It would be a human rights and international relations travesty if we killed innocent civilians. The days of vast wars between loyal Nazis and loyal Americans are gone. It will be small rogue states that can be taken down with far less than a nuke.

Nowhere has Obama agreed to destroy ALL of our nukes. We'll still have a few hundred of them and if we need to use them, we will.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
flanker
Posts: 1407
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:42 am

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:28 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 45):
We'll still have a few hundred of them and if we need to use them, we will.

see..

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 44):
he amount of the stockpile is not really at issue here.
Quoting flanker (Reply 43):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 24):
What people are complaining about is the no-use policy in response to a WMD attack.
Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:36 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 45):
We have megatons upon megatons of conventional weaponry that don't leave a radioactive mess behind.

Depending on the type of warhead used and its employment, it doesn't necessarily leave a radioactive mess behind.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9800
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:49 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 45):
The next country to hit the U.S. will be a totalitarian dictatorship in which the civilians are opposed to their government. It would be a human rights and international relations travesty if we killed innocent civilians.

There is something to be said for the idea that people get the government they deserve, and should be held liable for the consequences. The people of North Korea or Iran have a certain responsibility for having not lynched the nuts they have in charge, instead of cheering them on.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
MoltenRock
Topic Author
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

RE: Sarah Palin On Wrong Side Of Nuclear History

Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:51 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):
Does anyone else think that if the US suffers a nuclear attack that it is more likely to come from the back of a truck than the front of an ICBM? This treaty might make it even more dangerous, if some enterprising soldier wants to make a little cash on the side.

Hence why it's of utmost importance to get these "loose nukes" destroyed and out of the reach of terrorist nuts. Boiling down the nuclear arsenal to the lowest level possible, of the highest $$$ value, keeps both sides with a deterrent and reduces / eliminates older, obsolete, nukes from being recycled and/or stolen.

Having 1,000s of smaller nukes all over Russia and in tactical supplies means someone has a much, much, higher chance of losing the nukes or having them stolen by / for terrorists.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):
I don't think so. Peace through superior firepower.

So a nuke in the back of a truck from a "loose nuke" source is going to be thwarted when? If we have 200 nukes? 2,000? 20,000? 200,000?

See the huge flaw in your own logic yet?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pvjin and 22 guests