• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Renews Calls for Nuclear Reductions.....

Then can we have some good reasons to do it? Obama continually weakens our defenses.

The extra warheads cost money and do nothing to improve our defense.
 
I see Obammy had to be behind an eight foot wall of bullet proof glass. I don't recall President Reagan asking for protection. The difference is Obammy is trash while Presdient Reagan was a hero and still is. Presdient Reagan ordered Mr. Gorbachov to "tear down this wall" while Obammy demanded awall be put back up. What an embarrassment it was to see our "leader", the only one from any country to demand to be protected from pigeon poop.
 
Stupid **** is all over the damn place. Why doesn't he fix the broke economy and establish an environment for job creation first? There is no immediate need to reduce stockpiles right now, it's a diversion. And more bull**** about climate change. :roll: An Oval Office change would do us more good. :lol:

You like vast nuke stocking. Thay is odd.
 
Cant have a nuke war without nukes.

And so you are going to convince Iran to stop pursuing nukes? Pakistan and Israel are going to give theirs up? No. You need nukes, and more nukes than your enemies in order to prevent a nuclear war.
 
I see Obammy had to be behind an eight foot wall of bullet proof glass. I don't recall President Reagan asking for protection. The difference is Obammy is trash while Presdient Reagan was a hero and still is. Presdient Reagan ordered Mr. Gorbachov to "tear down this wall" while Obammy demanded awall be put back up. What an embarrassment it was to see our "leader", the only one from any country to demand to be protected from pigeon poop.

Amnesty for illegal immigrants
Reduction of nuclear stockpile
Stricter gun control
Give weapons to Islamic fundamentalists
Give weapons to terrorists
Increase in government spending
Increase in law enforcement authority over citizens

Am I describing a hero?
 
Amnesty for illegal immigrants
Reduction of nuclear stockpile
Stricter gun control
Give weapons to Islamic fundamentalists
Give weapons to terrorists
Increase in government spending
Increase in law enforcement authority over citizens

Am I describing a hero?

Heya Duece. :2wave: Wouldn't you say Obama fits that Mold?
 
And so you are going to convince Iran to stop pursuing nukes? Pakistan and Israel are going to give theirs up? No. You need nukes, and more nukes than your enemies in order to prevent a nuclear war.

Perhaps, but I dont think we need to be able to destroy the world 10 times over either.
 
Stupid **** is all over the damn place. Why doesn't he fix the broke economy and establish an environment for job creation first? There is no immediate need to reduce stockpiles right now, it's a diversion. And more bull**** about climate change. :roll: An Oval Office change would do us more good. :lol:

You act as if he can't do more than one thing at once.

If I was the President I'd reduce our nuclear weapons even without an agreement with anyone else, saves money, leads by example, and lets be honest do we really need thousands of nukes to achieve deterrence? For those who would worry about nukes, being nuked a hundred times is no different than a thousand, both are total destruction.
 
You act as if he can't do more than one thing at once.

If I was the President I'd reduce our nuclear weapons even without an agreement with anyone else, saves money, leads by example, and lets be honest do we really need thousands of nukes to achieve deterrence? For those who would worry about nukes, being nuked a hundred times is no different than a thousand, both are total destruction.

We don't have thousands.....why should we reduce under 300 when the Brits have like 260? They aren't going to reduce theirs
 
bottom line: if you're gonna offer something you need to get something in return

A diplomatic breakthrough on the Syrian civil war at the G8 summit in Northern Ireland appeared unlikely when the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, chastised the west for considering arming Syrian rebels, saying they ate human organs. He said Russia by contrast was arming the legitimate government of Syria.

In icy exchanges at a press conference, Putin said: "You will not deny that one does not really need to support the people who not only kill their enemies, but open up their bodies, eat their intestines in front of the public and cameras. Are these the people you want to support? Is it them who you want to supply with weapons?"

Syria: Putin backs Assad and berates west over proposal to arm rebels | World news | The Guardian
 
Maybe if you stop and consider it on it's merits it would come to you that it could also be a cost saver. But doing that would just destroy another one of your irrational arguments wouldn't it!

Keep on digging! Every word is a shovel full that gets you a little deeper.


Digging what ?

I'm not the one running around broadbrushing peopel as racist while making hypicritical anti-semitic statements. Thats you...digging.

The truth is millions of idiots elected a incompetent and a liar to preside over our Country.

Its foolish to trust him.
 
We don't have thousands.....why should we reduce under 300 when the Brits have like 260? They aren't going to reduce theirs

Obama administration discloses size of U.S. nuclear arsenal

Actually we have over 5,000 of them. And we aren't worried about British nuclear weapons, having nuclear weapons because the British have them is a waste of money.

And suppose we have to actually nuke someone, can you think of a situation where we would use 5,000 nuclear weapons? Or a thousand, or a hundred? Hell I can't think of a reason to use a single one, I'm not saying we should get rid of them all but 5,000 of them is a waste of money.
 
Obama administration discloses size of U.S. nuclear arsenal

Actually we have over 5,000 of them. And we aren't worried about British nuclear weapons, having nuclear weapons because the British have them is a waste of money.

And suppose we have to actually nuke someone, can you think of a situation where we would use 5,000 nuclear weapons? Or a thousand, or a hundred? Hell I can't think of a reason to use a single one, I'm not saying we should get rid of them all but 5,000 of them is a waste of money.

Heya Wiseone. :2wave: Thanks for that info. I thought maybe 1000. As I was going with the Article. ;)

Nuclear stockpile numbers are closely guarded secrets in most nations that possess them, but private nuclear policy experts say no countries other than the U.S. and Russia are thought to have more than 300. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that France has about 300, China about 240, Britain about 225, and Israel, India and Pakistan roughly 100 each.....snip

I have thought of a scenario.....like visitors to the Planet. That would be more Advanced than we are and just like we are in Warring and taking others stuff. Should they prove to be more than our match. Then Holding the planet hostage would be one way. To guarantee that No others can wipe out humanity and take it.
 
How ironic, a world leader in Germany calling out false threats all over the place, when he is the true threat. History repeating itself.
 
Heya Duece. :2wave: Wouldn't you say Obama fits that Mold?

Yes. And for some reason he's not a conservative hero even though this was a list of things Reagan did.
 
Heya Wiseone. :2wave: Thanks for that info. I thought maybe 1000. As I was going with the Article. ;)

Nuclear stockpile numbers are closely guarded secrets in most nations that possess them, but private nuclear policy experts say no countries other than the U.S. and Russia are thought to have more than 300. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that France has about 300, China about 240, Britain about 225, and Israel, India and Pakistan roughly 100 each.....snip

I have thought of a scenario.....like visitors to the Planet. That would be more Advanced than we are and just like we are in Warring and taking others stuff. Should they prove to be more than our match. Then Holding the planet hostage would be one way. To guarantee that No others can wipe out humanity and take it.
What, by wiping out ourselves? What kind of dumbass plan is that?
 
Heya Wiseone. :2wave: Thanks for that info. I thought maybe 1000. As I was going with the Article. ;)

Nuclear stockpile numbers are closely guarded secrets in most nations that possess them, but private nuclear policy experts say no countries other than the U.S. and Russia are thought to have more than 300. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that France has about 300, China about 240, Britain about 225, and Israel, India and Pakistan roughly 100 each.....snip

I have thought of a scenario.....like visitors to the Planet. That would be more Advanced than we are and just like we are in Warring and taking others stuff. Should they prove to be more than our match. Then Holding the planet hostage would be one way. To guarantee that No others can wipe out humanity and take it.

I think in the list of defense planning priorities, alien invasion falls well well well at the back of the list.
 
What, by wiping out ourselves? What kind of dumbass plan is that?

Say what Duece? How would one call it a dumbass Plan? Especially if.....in the Hypothetical, those visiting were going to wipe out Humanity. Having no other alternative. It would be the only response we would have.
 
I think in the list of defense planning priorities, alien invasion falls well well well at the back of the list.

Might not happen in our lifetime.....course then we did have the UN create a Special Committee to deal with any contact by those from another planet. Back in 2010. Creating the UN Office of Space Affairs.

United Nations to appoint space ambassador to act as first contact for aliens visiting Earth

article-1315336-0B5BC79B000005DC-443_472x322.jpg


Mazlan Othman is expected to be tasked with coordinating humanity's response to an extraterrestrial visit, if ever required.

The 58-year-old Malaysian will tell a conference next week that with the recent discovery of hundreds of planets orbiting around other stars, the detection of alien life is becoming more and more likely.

Ms Othman, currently the head of the UN's Office for Outer Space Affairs (Unoosa), recently told fellow scientists that mankind needed to be ready to deal with alien contact.

In April though Professor Stephen Hawking warned that the alien contact, if it ever comes, may not be as friendly as has been hoped.

In a documentary, the 68-year-old scientist said he imagined aliens arriving in 'massive ships' and could try to colonise Earth and plunder the planet's resources.

We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to

Read more: United Nations to appoint space ambassador to act as first contact for aliens visiting Earth | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
Say what Duece? How would one call it a dumbass Plan? Especially if.....in the Hypothetical, those visiting were going to wipe out Humanity. Having no other alternative. It would be the only response we would have.

So, what you are saying is we should keep hundreds, perhaps thousands of additional nuclear warheads around because of the indistinguishable-from-zero chance of alien invasion might prompt us to destroy ourselves out of spite instead of actually fighting back.

No really, this is ****ing stupid.
 
So, what you are saying is we should keep hundreds, perhaps thousands of additional nuclear warheads around because of the indistinguishable-from-zero chance of alien invasion might prompt us to destroy ourselves out of spite instead of actually fighting back.

No really, this is ****ing stupid.

No I didn't say anything about Not fighting back.....you just added that to the mix. But that's alright......clearly you cannot comprehend what you cannot fathom.
 
Back
Top Bottom