close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Obama cutting nuclear arsenal!

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by jeanderson, Feb 12, 2013.

  1. jeanderson

    jeanderson Toga!... Toga! Platinum Member

    If there is any doubt in anyone's mind that Obama is explicitly trying to destroy the United States, please read this: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ob.../2013/02/12/id/490009?s=al&promo_code=126D5-1

    Unilaterally cutting our nuclear arsenal by a third? :wow::wow::wow:

    Why would he do this without any pressure from anyone or any reciprocal cuts by Russia or China? The only conclusion I can come to is that he wants to destroy this country. If someone else has another answer, please respond...
     
  2. JBnTX

    JBnTX Texas

    19,741
    3,813
    Aug 28, 2008
    Texas
    While Iran and North Korea are building nukes....:steamed:

    Obama, like the libertarians, considers America the source of all evil in the world. He thinks that getting rid of our nukes, bringing our troops home and castrating our military will make the world a safer place.

    I'm sure the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians and al-Qaeda all agree with him.

    ..
     

    Last edited: Feb 12, 2013

  3. snerd

    snerd

    12,660
    3,189
    Apr 20, 2007
    Oklahoma
    He believes that if he unilaterally cuts our nukes, the rest of the world will follow and he'll have his place in history reserved. Really. He and most liberal progressives actually believe that.
     
  4. Slug71

    Slug71

    4,499
    10
    Mar 7, 2010
    Oregon - U.S.A
    Well considering you only need a dozen or so nukes to demolish the world, is it really a big deal?
     
  5. SPIN2010

    SPIN2010 Searching ...

    1,781
    1
    Mar 14, 2010
    On the move ... again!
    Just wait until "Iranian Chuck" gets at the helm, I hope you have your turban wound up correctly.

    More proof that rope testing needs to occur in WashDC.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2013
  6. aircarver

    aircarver Ride Continues Silver Member

  7. Paul7

    Paul7 New Guy

    15,025
    1,478
    Dec 16, 2004
    East of Eden
  8. EOS

    EOS

    4,209
    2,774
    May 30, 2012
    Central Kentucky
    :rofl:


    Do you even believe some of the things you post?

    Obama arms Syrian rebels, bombs Lybia, and kills thousands(innocents included) with drones and your still mad because he isn't doing enough? Wow, just wow. You are one bloodthirsty dude.

    Don't throw us Libertarians in with Liberals.

    Yes, 900 billion dollar budgets, troops commiting suicide, and making enemies around the globe only perpetuates America's foriegn problems.

    It probably takes 1-10 nukes to totally destroy any country and the world. Why again do we need enough to blow up the earth 50 times? Is this another one of those situations where you invest your ego in how many weapons we have and how big the country's military is?
     
  9. JBnTX

    JBnTX Texas

    19,741
    3,813
    Aug 28, 2008
    Texas
    A strong military acts a deterrent and makes our enemies think twice about attacking us.

    Do you have a problem with that?
     
  10. I'll enter the fray.

    To address the OP, I'm not convinced a reduction puts us at any risk. While other nations are producing them, currently have them or are trying to produce them, we have more than we need. I have a hard time envisioning a scenario that reached full out nuclear war.

    I'd also offer that state actors that don't like us would not go to war with us for several reasons, none of which include our nuclear capability. Potential adversaries know they can't match our military power. They also know other nations will join us, which increases our capability. To me, that takes the typical attack scenario off the table because it's a losing proposition. What replaces a conventional attack are asymmetric attacks. I'd venture to say we are pretty vulnerable against cyber attacks. Looking at non state actors? Again, I don't think our nuclear arsenal is even a remote consideration for them. It didn't stop AQ from carrying out the 9-11 attacks and I don't think it'll stop another group either.

    So when you account for those points, you're left asking, "Why do we need so many and why do we pay for their upkeep if its not an effective deterrent in today's environment?" To me, it seems hard to justify it. I'd rather shift resources to other weapons or functions that meet current challenges.
     
  11. jlavallee

    jlavallee

    788
    1
    Jul 15, 2006
    Reno, NV
    Oh, shut your pie hole. The libertarians far from think that but we're not going to tolerate the BS that both left and right wings spew so they feel empowered to be involved in stuff that is none of their business.

    Why would this surprise you anyway? You know Barry has plans to have us under UN/globalist rule. Of course the last two Republican Presidents weren't much better. But you'll go on with garbage and forget the NWO stuff, Patriot Act and get all teary eyed for Reagan who while better that what we're used to, was a far cry from his talk.
     
  12. JBnTX

    JBnTX Texas

    19,741
    3,813
    Aug 28, 2008
    Texas
    I must have struck a nerve with this one...:rofl:

    Your hero Ron Paul was the biggest isolationist on the planet and so were most of his followers. Remember all that talk about the problems in the Middle East being "blowback" for our involvement in those countries?

    The last two republican presidents were far better than Obama. So was Reagan.

    Obama is an enemy of this country and his destruction of our military is proof of that.

    We don't live in a vacuum on this planet and it's in the best interests of our national security that we have as many nukes as possible, the strongest military possible and that we stay engaged in the affairs of other countries.

    ..
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2013
  13. jeanderson

    jeanderson Toga!... Toga! Platinum Member

    I don't disagree that we have more than we need, but why even bring this up now? What's the point? To make our enemies think we're even weaker than they first imagined?
     
  14. evlbruce

    evlbruce

    5,305
    0
    Nov 3, 2003
    We could sell 'em to the DPRK and Iran.

    Since the administration isn't stopping them from development and deployment, they may as well pay for a vaca or two.
     
  15. I'm pretty sure that countries like North Korea, Iran, and others don't think we're weak. Now those countries may be stupid enough to try something-- Iran firing on one of our ships in the Gulf or N Korea doing any number of things. But again, our arsenal of nuclear weapons, even a reduced one, is so far down on their list in determining a course of action, it's irrelevant. China? A conventional attack isn't happening. They know they can't match us, they know they'd suffer immense economical damage, and they aren't even putting defense as their top priority-- growing their economy is their #1 priority.

    BTW-- I've been wrong before. Just ask my wife!
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2013
  16. Yes, he's a naive socialist with NPD. Which, of course, is even more dangerous than a your average socialist with NPD.

    NPD = Narcissistic Personality Disorder
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2013
  17. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2013
  18. JBnTX

    JBnTX Texas

    19,741
    3,813
    Aug 28, 2008
    Texas
    Would you also put a limit on the number of bullets, ships and airplanes we need?

    We need all the nukes we can get.
     
  19. jlavallee

    jlavallee

    788
    1
    Jul 15, 2006
    Reno, NV
    Someday you'll get a dictionary and learn what that word means. :rofl:
     
  20. EOS

    EOS

    4,209
    2,774
    May 30, 2012
    Central Kentucky

    Yep. Because you have no fiscal restraint when it comes to the military. Spend us into collapse and bankrupt the working populace trying to police the world and building an arsenal we'll never fully use.

    Just so you can puff yourself up and proudly proclaim.....'Merica!!!
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2013