Obama's "Disarm America" Ad

Scarey...This guy has led a sheltered life, maybe he should buy the world a coke (for those old enough to remember that commercial).

No, sounds like he wants to disarm the United States just to make "the world" feel better.  This man is dangerous.

No anyone whom wants to not resume disarmament talks, continue to allow and even improve nuclear weapons and militarize space is dangerous.

Nuclear weapons cannot be un-invented. In fact more countries will get the technology as the science becomes easier to obtain and cheaper. In my opinion the weapons should continue to be developed, the cleaner the weapon the better. It's been decades since the US exploded a bomb. Reliability checks are done by software algorithms. Would anyone fly a 30 year old plane if the mechanic told them we haven't tested it but the computer says its fine? I pray the devices never have to be used in anger, but I know there are people/groups/nations would use it against us today if they could.

Now I'm all for reducing the nuke stock pile, we have way too many than we need to get the job done. But to think others would give it up is plain crazy. I learned never come to a gun fight with a knife. Until 1. a better, more efficient killing device is invented or 2. we invent a machine that lets us know others intent (which will happen first, hummm wish in one hand, xxxx in the other, see which fills first) we'll keep the bomb. I'm a firm believer that is was the only thing that kept the Soviets from moving west in the late 40's. Might be ancient history for some, but history has a way of repeating itself.

As for the weaponization of space it's already happened. O'bama is a damn fool if he thinks our enemies will just let out GPS, communication, and surveillance satellites fly unimpeded over their territory. We’re dependent on those systems. Our current enemy wears civilian clothes and hides among women and children, exploiting our sensibilities. Does anyone believe for a minute that a slightly more technically orientated foe would allow us an edge over them? Iran stopped their Nuke weapons program in 2003 when they saw Saddam’s army defeated in three weeks (something they couldn't do in eight years). That unfortunately is what it takes for some countries. Of course now that the Iranians have seen our lack of commitment, and defeatist attitudes (most from the Democrats) they probably started their work back up. 

The best way to stay out of a war is by being the strongest, negotiate from a position of strength, be demanding but fair in diplomacy, use force as a last resort, but NEVER take it off the table.

Yea we should break the NPT, that'll usher in a new era of peace and put everyone back on the road to sanity, brilliant. A cleaner nuclear reaction is not possible, unless you think we can change the laws of physics.

There is no scenario in which the use of such weapons is justified. Even if terrorist organization or nation managed to nuke a US city it would not justify the use of nukes on their city when we can target only those responsible.

What job would that be? Oh yea, the destruction of the human race, right we shouldn't scratch that off our to do list.

WTF are you even talking about? Weaponizing space means (weapons in space). You know like missile platforms, particle beams, space sharks with frickin laser beams on their heads, not GPS and spy satellites.

How do you know why or even if Iran halted it's nuclear program? Our intelligent's over there is no better than it was in Iraq. I think it's far more likely they thought without nukes there's nothing we have to stop us from being next. More recent intelligent's would seem to suggest they're doing just that.

Disarmament should be the goal of every president since this madness began, the only reason we have a stock pile is because the Russians have a stock pile, stepping back from the abyss is the only sane direction to take. NW as a tool for war are as useless a bio-weapons. As the very smart computer in the movie War Games said, "the only way to win is not to play".

Perhaps you didn't see my words "In my opinion" I respect yours. Old weapons are not necessarily safe weapons. I don’t advocate breaking any treaties, but a possible amendment could be wise for all participants concerned to ensure reliability.

It’s called fusion, you might have heard of it, unlike fission in use today. It is a long way off sure, but if you’re going to use laws to make a point please take them all into consideration. Nor was my meaning confined to nuclear type weapons. Efficient killing does not mean nuclear by a long shot.

I disagree, and I think most of the troops waiting to invade Japan in 1945 would as well. I believe if the US is attacked we should retaliate, be it nuclear or conventional dependent on the situation. Terrorists are a problem, but they get their support from someone. As long as some US citizens want to keep the US weak, then these nations and their terrorist proxies will take advantage of that. There are far too many leaders in this world that only respect military might. Talks mean little to them.

I appreciate your over simplification of my words and wanting to save the rest of the world after a nuclear attack on the US, maybe I’m not as benevolent as you. Back you your comment, "enough to do the job" is exactly what it means. In warfare, the goal is to reduce the enemy’s war fighting capacity, including the will to fight. This is all relevant to the size and capabilities of the potential enemy. I'm not suggesting for example we nuke Afghanistan after 9/11. A response in proportion to the attack is fine. Now the threat of possible nuclear retaliation against a nation supporting a terrorist group might pressure them to reign in their dogs.

I see I'm responding to someone who knows little about weapons systems. If GPS allows your JDAMS to hit the target, guess what… it is part of the weapons system. Ask Russia and China who accused us of weaponizing space with this year’s successful launch FROM A SHIP, a missile that took down a failing spy satellite what their definition is. We also accused the Chinese last year of weaponizing space when they shot down one of their old weather satellite. Your idea of a death star, while both amusing and revealing, is not entirely what weaponizing space means. It’s any weapons device kinetic, energy or explosive that functions, including its final phase in space, that is a space weapon. Perhaps you are confused about space-based weapons. As for the satellites I mentioned in my earlier post; do you believe the sights on a rifle are not part of the weapon? Our military satellites (yes the GPS in your Garmin)in a part of a weapons system. Our enemies would love for use to spend billions on a floating target that would be destroyed in the opening minutes of hostilities,:)  

I don't, all I have is the information provided to me. From this data let’s look at Iran. They had a nuclear weapons program until fall 2003. Iraq was invaded in spring (March 20 to be exact, since I was there). The Iranians packed it up...why? Fear is the only thing that comes to my mind on their decision to do so. Have they restarted their program back up...I can say for sure, but after seeing this congress at work, and the possibility of a weak democratic president in office next year, I surely would. Peaceniks can’t have it both ways, citing the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate to let Iran off the hook for nuke weapons development then in the same breath saying the Iraq war had no impact on WMD's from the Middle East. Read the report for yourself if you like.

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

Agreed, but IMHO the genie is never going back in the bottle. Bless the kool-aid drinkers that think it will happen. So what to do? 1. Keep others from joining the nuclear club (they might not play nice like the Russians or Chinese). Once one nation (or group) that has no regard for its or anyone else’s live it will be used. 2. Promote trade. People are less likely to attack a customer or supplier.3. Stay strong. This is the only thing some people understand. Attacks only come when the enemy thinks the other is weak or vulnerable in some way.

Lwt's hope cooler heads prevail.

I see your words just fine and in your opinion we should resume testing for the purpose of building a better bomb. This is in direct violation of every aspect of the NPT. You wouldn't just have to ratify the treaty you would have to abolish it.

Hot fusion releases as much radiation as fission. Now if you could create a hydrogen bomb that didn't need the energy of a fission reaction to start you wouldn't have the added radioactivity of plutonium dust, so I guess that would be a cleaner hydrogen bomb. Trouble is there's no way to do that, there isn't really even any hypotheses on how to create enough energy to start an explosive hot fusion reaction other than a fission bomb and even if there was just looking for it is a violation of the NPT. Besides why would you want to put the use of the indiscriminate horror of a nuclear explosion more practical?

Nowhere did you even hint you were talking about any other type of weapon you supporter of efficient killing you.

The exact definition of "enough to do the job" is the problem. The amount of nukes we have now is what was decided to be "enough to do the job" because "enough to do the job" is at least one more than the other guy. If we go to the Russians and say "ok it would take 500 nukes to destroy your country and 500 to destroy ours so lets reduce our perspective arsenals to 500". Now the Russians think, our rockets aren't in as good as shape as theirs plus we don't know how many they could knock down before they get there so they think we need at least 1000. We think they don't get to have more than us so we say 1000, you see where this is going? Getting rid of them all is the only option. 

Wow was that ever irrelevant. You said "As for the weaponization of space it's already happened. O'bama is a damn fool if he thinks our enemies will just let out GPS, communication, and surveillance satellites fly unimpeded over their territory".

Getting rid of GPS and spy satellites is that what you think Obama was talking about? That SOB, how am I ever going to find a latte when I'm out of town? No, he was talking about weapons, big honkin space guns, specifically an orbital missile defense systems and yea that could include terrestrial weapons capable of reaching space. The problem with orbital missile defense is anything that can engage a missile from space has to be an offensive weapon first, capable of attacking any number of targets on land, sea or in the air. There's no way to limit their abilities to missile defense so now we have a new arms race in space that goes way beyond observation and navigation.

LOL Now that's exactly what Obama was talking about. Not wasting billions on weapon systems that are stupid.

We didn't use nukes in Iraq. So if that's true they were intimidated by our conventional capabilities, they were never afraid of being nuked if they didn't halt their program because that would never happen and they knew that. Nukes are not even relevant to a strong military anymore. If Russia an the US released their status as nuclear powers there would be no need for them at all. We've shown we have the conventional warfare capabilities to take any army quite easily so we will always negotiate from a position of strength regardless of our nuclear status or theirs. It wouldn't make us appear weak at all, just sane and in a much less hypocritical position to discourage others from pursuing such weapons. So many dismiss the incredible hypocrisy of a country with enough nukes to destroy the planet telling others they can't have any. It's also the reason we can't just flat out place a ban on nukes and making their development by any country an act of war.

Sure we can, there are numerous WMD's that are kept in the bottle. The future promises technologies that could be used in ever more destructive ways so we better get dam good at keeping genies in the bottle if we want to have any hope of surviving our technological adolescence. Do you think would should develop all the new efficient ways to kill science offers up? We'll soon have the ability to develop bio-weapons that target only a specific race do you think we should explore the ability to re-task Hitler's plan?

 [/quote]

I don't see how the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty you mention has squat to do with the Compressive Test Ban Treaty. You are obviously unaware of the Nuclear Reliability Testing program. The (unclassified) information is available, I don’t have time in instruct. As for the CTBT here’s an excerpt:

"Three treaties currently limit testing to underground only, with a maximum force equal to 150,000 tons of TNT. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the United States conducted 1,030 nuclear tests, the Soviet Union 715, the United Kingdom 45, France 210, and China 45. The last U.S. test was held in 1992; the last U.K. test, in 1991. Russia claims it has not conducted nuclear tests since 1991.

Since 1997, the United States has held 21 "subcritical experiments" at the Nevada Test Site, most recently on May 25, 2004, to study how plutonium behaves under pressures generated by explosives. It asserts these experiments do not violate the CTBT because they cannot produce a self-sustaining chain reaction. Russia has reportedly held some since 1998, including several in 2000."

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/nucweps%20test%20ban.htm

The NNPT you talk about

Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/

So according to you every nuclear power has broke NNPT.

People once said man couldn’t fly as well, but so glad you’re so well informed as to what is being developed and what isn’t, didn’t realize you were in the loop. Maybe you can be Obama security advisor. (perhaps you heard of anti-matter, and the power it can produce, and it has already been created on a molecular level, even an oak was once an acorn). It’s not hard to image a small amount used as a detonator.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/04/MNGM393GPK1.DTL

From my original post:

Nowhere in that single statement does it say nuclear.

Fine show me your facts. I’ll make it easy for you…you can’t because you don’t know (and neither do I) the potential scenarios. I do know that most of our weapons in the arsenal today are well under 20 kt, The Mk 18 was 500 kt and was retired from service in 1956. Most of the devices over 100 Kt were retired in the 60’s. A device with a 10 Mt yield was never build and canceled in the 90’s. The Soviets reported developed a 100 Mt device, because they couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn. Since our weapons are small but accurate, and a potential adversary like Russia is so vast a quality of devices would be needed. Additional other countries could join in a attack so that would be factored in. Somebody has the answer, not you or I. Your theory to remove all nuclear weapons is very naïve, because you never know who will hold out. You’re in construction? You be taken advantage of a lot if you applied your thinking to your business, “I’ll build your house, no need for money until its finished”.

Have a read if you like:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

No, never said he did. That part of the weapons system will remain in place. He’ll sell away our option to do what the Russian and Chinese WILL do if hostilities were to break, and that’s use the business end of our space weapons, which are in fact based on the ground, sea, and air. The Chinese have made denial of our sensors a priority their battle doctrine. The object of an enemy is to take away any advantage technological or otherwise. Only one way to do it my friend, shoot it down (Imaging satellites can be blinded with lasers). I’m tired of trying to explain it to you; you don’t get it, or don’t want to. It’s like having a recruiting station next to a code pink office.

Sure, he’s got lots of other plans for the taxpayer money. I’m sure defense of any kind is not a priority.

LOL, you’re cracking me up now. Tell me which WMD’s are back in the bottle i.e. un-invented? Biological and chemical weapons are stored and can be produced more easily that any nuclear device can. Much cheaper too.

Yeah, just ask Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Why does the left always bring up Hitler when a person supports a strong defense? The way you speak you’d think that I invented nuclear weapons. Well I’m here to tell you nobody wants war less on average than former or current soldiers. Now unless you have a valid point to make based on reality and with unbiased prove, don’t feel you have to respond. Like I said I can respect your position, I don’t have to agree with it. Same for you. In fact I’ve seen some of your other posts where I do agree with you. I’d like to see others opinions, it’s not my intention to dominate Island Dogs article.

You said "In my opinion the weapons should continue to be developed, the cleaner the weapon the better. It's been decades since the US exploded a bomb".

Doing anything that you suggest is in clear violation of one of more treaties that we signed is it not? And in doing so we would break the treaty and potentially re-invigorate a nuclear arms race. IMO that would be bad. How does pointing out they're two treaties change the fact that you think we should break or attempt to change them?

I almost mentioned anti-matter but then I thought na, he's not gonna mention that it's too far off. 

"Clean' nuclear weapons are more dangerous than dirty ones because they are more likely to be used," said an e-mail from science historian George Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., author of "Project Orion," a 2002 study on a Cold War-era attempt to design a nuclear spaceship. Still, Dyson adds, antimatter weapons are "a long, long way off."

We don't need mare palatable massive explosions. To win a war all you have to do is gain air supremacy and it's over. A million soldiers can shout and fire their guns into the air and we wouldn't hear a thing because they can't go anywhere.

Your right you didn't, I misread your first statement so your subsequent statements didn't make any sense, my apologies. However I think Obama is right in not pursuing the weaponization of space. For one if we start blowing stuff up out there it wont be long before we won't be able to keep a satellite in orbit very long because of the millions of little pieces reeking havoc.

I think this fact would make it in everyone's mutual benefit not militarize space, and unlike the Bush administration Obama is saying he would agree to a ban on developing these weapons. Launch some stealth GPS and spy satellites if it makes you feel better. 

You said you were all for reducing the nuke stock pile. I explained why that's not going to work and why you have to get rid of them all because no one can agree on how much is enough. That's my point and you didn't address it. Actually the main goal of the NPT to eliminate nuclear weapons not jot just stop their proliferation. If the Russia and the US disarm getting the rest of the world to do the same would be infinitely easier and any hold outs would be under such intense surveillance they would pose no real threat.

I certainly don't want Iran to have a nuke and I think if they start making one we should blow it up. I do not see however what Iran's nuclear plans have to do with our nuclear readiness. We certainly do not need nukes to take Iran even if they had them.

I mentioned him because of the obvious connection between a race targeted bio-weapon and eugenics.

Using ant-matter as an example, it takes such a small amount that theoretically you could build a device that could fit in your pocket capable of devastating an entire continent. With destructive power like that the idea of mutually assured destruction as a deterrent doesn't work because these weapons would be so devastating and so fast there can be no response to an attack.

Its like two guys with shotguns pointed at each others head, the first to pull the trigger wins. So by developing these weapons your doing exactly what you say your trying to prevent, handing our fate over to someone else. Or should we race to develop these weapons to use them against our enemies before they do?

With the radical threats we now face what has terrified us the most is them getting a hold of a WMD of some kind. That's certainly a valid concern but a concern we would not have had the cold war super powers not developed them in the first place. So you would have to agree that if we could un-invent them we wouldn't have this potential nightmare scenario now. All these weapons took the resources of large countries to develop.

Individual nuts and radical groups do not have the resources for such undertakings, they have to make use of our inventions, so why keep developing better ways for them to kill us? As long as we work hard to keep healthy relations with Russia and China the world can be pretty safe, no one else has the resources to challenge us.

Scientific discovery is becoming a global venture like with the Large Hadron collider requiring massive resources and expertise. Who knows what new destructive knowledge that will reveal. We can and should use our new foresight and not weaponize these new discoveries because were afraid someone else will do it if we don't. It will guarantee our destruction. The last statement in the article you linked I think says it well.

"Besides, Lynn is enthusiastic about antimatter because he believes it could propel futuristic space rockets".

"I think," he said, "we need to get off this planet, because I'm afraid we're going to destroy it."

Thanks for the engaging discussion. I think everyone would agree a nuclear war would be bad on any scale. I've commented much more than I expected to on the matter, so I won't delve deeper. The curious reader has a starting place if they want to learn more, no matter what side of the fence they sit on - 100% nuke free or they exist, let's not be the one holding the short straw, or somewhere in between.