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

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.

 [/quote]

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."