FRom bad to worse

[3rdnlng]

You know he could change his mind right?

 

Or we could bomb the holy hell out of them using conventional weapons without irradiating everyone in Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Would that make you happy?

 

This is about as silly as when we "pointed" our nukes away from Russia, as if there wasn't someone poised to load in the coordinates at a moments notice. We can change our posture at any time. But even with such a meaningless gesture, I can't believe people are so up in arms about it. It's like we turned into a bunch of surrender monkeys with only a few thousand nuclear weapons that we will try our hardest not to use. USA = p*ssies!

 

 

The issue is deterrence. What good does it do to tell the world that we would never use them against a country that didn't have them? The idea is for us to not be attacked. Unless I've missed something we haven't been talking trash to the rest of the world and threatening to use our nukes. Why not just keep our mouths shut and keep the countries that might want to harm us guessing?

[yall]

The issue is deterrence. What good does it do to tell the world that we would never use them against a country that didn't have them? The idea is for us to not be attacked. Unless I've missed something we haven't been talking trash to the rest of the world and threatening to use our nukes. Why not just keep our mouths shut and keep the countries that might want to harm us guessing?

 

You've missed something.

[Magox]

The issue is deterrence. What good does it do to tell the world that we would never use them against a country that didn't have them? The idea is for us to not be attacked. Unless I've missed something we haven't been talking trash to the rest of the world and threatening to use our nukes. Why not just keep our mouths shut and keep the countries that might want to harm us guessing?

I'm not bothered by this one bit. Why? Because it was virtually tangibly meaningless. It was motivated more so by good politics than anything else, the reality is that there are far more nukes on the shelves than on the warheads, and it was the number of nukes on warheads that were affected by this agreement.

[3rdnlng]

You've missed something.

 

OK. Tell me what I've missed regarding th US flexing its nukes.

[DC Tom]

The issue is deterrence. What good does it do to tell the world that we would never use them against a country that didn't have them? The idea is for us to not be attacked. Unless I've missed something we haven't been talking trash to the rest of the world and threatening to use our nukes. Why not just keep our mouths shut and keep the countries that might want to harm us guessing?

 

I think, though, that most countries would be just as deterred by an arsenal of a thousand nuclear warheads as the would three thousand.

 

The real deterrence purpose for such a bloated nuclear arsenal was deterrence of another bloated nuclear arsenal - the Soviets couldn't realistically take out the entire US nuclear capability with a first strike if our nuclear capability was so overwhelmingly large (and vice-versa). Most of the countries you're talking about deterring now - North Korea, Iran - wouldn't even survive our conventional capacity for more than a week, never mind half a dozen nukes. Even the Chinese nuclear threat doesn't warrant thousands of nuclear warheads for a response capacity (the Chinese nuclear ability is about as accurate as one of conner's posts - it's a counter-value capacity, not counter-force. They can't realistically take out even a hundred US warheads with a nuclear strike.)

[yall]

OK. Tell me what I've missed regarding th US flexing its nukes.

 

First, I didn't mean to be so snotty.

 

But basically, the deterrence was needed for countries with nukes, primarily the USSR.

[DC Tom]

First, I didn't mean to be so snotty.

 

It's okay, it's PPP.

 

In fact, if you're not going to be snotty, you should probably leave.

[IDBillzFan]

I'm not bothered by this one bit. Why? Because it was virtually tangibly meaningless. It was motivated more so by good politics than anything else, the reality is that there are far more nukes on the shelves than on the warheads, and it was the number of nukes on warheads that were affected by this agreement.

The more I read into this, the more I agree with this sentiment. Granted, it didn't help with the increasingly pussified reputation of Obama, and it's red meat for the right, but at the end of the day, it's a completely useless declaration.

 

I will tell you my larger concern, globally speaking (and not inclusive of concern for loss of life), in regards to someone attacking the US with weapons of any significant magnitude: the economy. The US economy is already in the tank; we're in debt up to our eyeballs, our cards are maxed out, tax revenue is way down, and while admittedly I am no economist, I shudder to think what would happen if we had an event on US soil similar in size, or larger than, what happened on 9/11.

 

This may well be pedestrian thinking, but I feel like we're so stretched financially that an attack on US soil would be devastating to the world economy. Whether we retaliate with nukes would be a somewhat lesser concern to me.

[3rdnlng]

I think, though, that most countries would be just as deterred by an arsenal of a thousand nuclear warheads as the would three thousand.

 

The real deterrence purpose for such a bloated nuclear arsenal was deterrence of another bloated nuclear arsenal - the Soviets couldn't realistically take out the entire US nuclear capability with a first strike if our nuclear capability was so overwhelmingly large (and vice-versa). Most of the countries you're talking about deterring now - North Korea, Iran - wouldn't even survive our conventional capacity for more than a week, never mind half a dozen nukes. Even the Chinese nuclear threat doesn't warrant thousands of nuclear warheads for a response capacity (the Chinese nuclear ability is about as accurate as one of conner's posts - it's a counter-value capacity, not counter-force. They can't realistically take out even a hundred US warheads with a nuclear strike.)

 

I'm specifically referring to stating that our policy is to not go after a country with nukes if they themselves don't have any. Why broadcast to the world what we would or wouldn't do?

[Magox]

The US economy is already in the tank; we're in debt up to our eyeballs, our cards are maxed out, tax revenue is way down, and while admittedly I am no economist, I shudder to think what would happen if we had an event on US soil similar in size, or larger than, what happened on 9/11.

 

This may well be pedestrian thinking, but I feel like we're so stretched financially that an attack on US soil would be devastating to the world economy. Whether we retaliate with nukes would be a somewhat lesser concern to me.

This economy now resides in the proverbial rabbit hole, and we are at a critical inflection point. Do we continue to push through with the entitlement society that Democratic leadership wants, or do we resist and show up in a meaningful way in 2010, 2012?

 

If the W.H and Democratic Leadership win, then our country is destined for much higher taxes and a more government dependent society. There will virtually be little fiscal/governmental policy difference between the U.S and Western Europe.

It's not as if Europe is some big bag of steaming poo poo, but let's be real here, they have been mired with high taxes and slow growth for more than two generations now.

[Magox]

I'm specifically referring to stating that our policy is to not go after a country with nukes if they themselves don't have any. Why broadcast to the world what we would or wouldn't do?

No offense, really, but that is a straw man's argument. No one is going to !@#$ with the US, and if they do, they are going to get their asses handed to them, even with Obama at the helm.

[3rdnlng]

No offense, really, but that is a straw man's argument. No one is going to !@#$ with the US, and if they do, they are going to get their asses handed to them, even with Obama at the helm.

 

I'm talking deterrence, not getting even with the bstards. Don't give the Hugo Chavezes of this world any ideas. Far fetched? So was 911.

[PastaJoe]

I'm specifically referring to stating that our policy is to not go after a country with nukes if they themselves don't have any. Why broadcast to the world what we would or wouldn't do?

 

It's thinking ahead and setting a precedent. By stating such, it takes away the justification for any non-nuclear power to acquire nuclear weapons. Which means that if they do try to acquire them, the U.S. has the high ground in world opinion to get tough sanctions against countries such as Iran or North Korea, or as a last resort to use conventional weapons to take out their processing facilities. Getting Russia and China to agree on sanctions is crucial for them to be effective. The first step is to improve relations with them. This is just one move in the chess game.

[Celtic_soulja]

“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of this Earth.” - Ronald Reagan, 1984, in China.

 

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...ays-gop-ii.html

 

Damn right Ray Gun...H.W. Bush ended the cold war using that mentality...it used to be a great thing to disarm the nuclear weapons in the Republican Party...I don't know what happened to the right wings lately...

[yall]

Damn right Ray Gun...H.W. Bush ended the cold war using that mentality...it used to be a great thing to disarm the nuclear weapons in the Republican Party...I don't know what happened to the right wings lately...

 

They've become convinced that gays are the bigger threat. That being the case, maybe we could airdrop the casts of Rent and La Cage a Faux into enemy territory.

[3rdnlng]

They've become convinced that gays are the bigger threat. That being the case, maybe we could airdrop the casts of Rent and La Cage a Faux into enemy territory.

 

Beware of the unintended consequences. Dropping things on an island could tip it over, so says the democrat congressman.

[yall]

Beware of the unintended consequences. Dropping things on an island could tip it over, so says the democrat congressman.

 

I know of the quote to which you are referring. I don't have any particular knowledge of this guy, but I have to believe he was employing a metaphor to describe the impact on the islands economy, environment, etc.

 

If he wasn't then there might actually be someone dumber than Palin or Bachman out there at the moment.

[John Adams]

I know of the quote to which you are referring. I don't have any particular knowledge of this guy, but I have to believe he was employing a metaphor to describe the impact on the islands economy, environment, etc.

 

If he wasn't then there might actually be someone dumber than Palin or Bachman out there at the moment.

 

He's backtracked to saying that now but he was worried about it tipping over. He and Palin would have a good showdown at the retard rodeo.

[3rdnlng]

I know of the quote to which you are referring. I don't have any particular knowledge of this guy, but I have to believe he was employing a metaphor to describe the impact on the islands economy, environment, etc.

 

If he wasn't then there might actually be someone dumber than Palin or Bachman out there at the moment.

 

Actually he rivals Pelosi with her repeated assertions that "natural gas is not a fossil fuel". I've listened to the congressman's comments and there is no doubt in my mind that he was serious. To compare either of these two idiots to Bachman or Palin intelligence-wise is nothing but partisan sniping. Palin or Bachman may or may not be presidential material and don't have the experience in my opinion, but that didn't stop us in "08, did it?

[yall]

Actually he rivals Pelosi with her repeated assertions that "natural gas is not a fossil fuel". I've listened to the congressman's comments and there is no doubt in my mind that he was serious. To compare either of these two idiots to Bachman or Palin intelligence-wise is nothing but partisan sniping. Palin or Bachman may or may not be presidential material and don't have the experience in my opinion, but that didn't stop us in "08, did it?

 

Maybe she meant the hot air that she emits?

 

Then again, at her age, that still might be considered a fossil fuel.

 

On another note, you can call it partisan sniping all you want, but Palin and Bachman are !@#$ing retarded.