Comments on: Obama, Medvedev Agree To Cut Nuclear Arms
Two Leaders in Moscow Have Signed Joint Understanding to Reduce Warheads to as Few as 1,500 Each
Add a Comment See all 52 Comments
- You call the change from Democracy to socialism sanity?
When has it ever been a good idea to go into talks with the enemy. Communism is the enemy of Democracy. Does the name Pearl Harbor bring anything to mind?
Add to that the fact that we have to trust a communist dictator to keep his word and reduce the number of nuclear weapons in his arsenal.
And how do you think North Korea would view this agreement?
Sanity? Far from it. More like a death wish. - Reply to this comment
- by tmittelstaed July 6, 2009 1:29 PM PDT
"Nukes are the only thing that has kept the world from having WWIII. It would be a terrible mistake to get rid of them. The purpose of a nuke is to prevent war, and if you look at history since nukes were invented, we have never had a war between 2 nuke-armed countries. All the wars we have had have been between countries that wern't nuke, or countries where one was nuke and the other wasn't. Why do you think Iran is working so hard to get it's own nukes? They don't want to be attacked. They know perfectly well that once their field nukes, they will never be able to attack Israel - because if they did, the counterattack would be nukes on their civilians.
Doves hate nukes because they are sure that one day they will be used. Hawks hate nukes because their existence at your opponent means that's one less country you can fight a war with. Neither, though, has the brains to understand what nukes have actually accomplished."
That's just the continuation of the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine from the 60's. If you are using that theory then we have enough to destroy ourselves several times over or as used to be known Overkill ratio. So in the end if you only need just for figuring 100 nukes, then why stockpile more?
And please don't use the I've got a bigger tool than you do" argument. - Reply to this comment
-
- How about the 'I can shoot your nukes outta the sky' argument. If you have a thousand nukes, chances are that more will actually hit the target, thus even defensive missile technologies won't alter MAD. However if you have only 100 nukes, that could theoretically be minimized to cause far less damage, thus neutralizing MAD.
- As ALL Presidents do. Keep tryin though, it's funny...PATHETIC, but very, very funny.
- Reply to this comment
- Now where is that bottle of vodka, Obama likes to party on our dime.
- Reply to this comment
- Nukes are the only thing that has kept the world from having WWIII. It would be a terrible mistake to get rid of them. The purpose of a nuke is to prevent war, and if you look at history since nukes were invented, we have never had a war between 2 nuke-armed countries. All the wars we have had have been between countries that wern't nuke, or countries where one was nuke and the other wasn't. Why do you think Iran is working so hard to get it's own nukes? They don't want to be attacked. They know perfectly well that once their field nukes, they will never be able to attack Israel - because if they did, the counterattack would be nukes on their civilians.
Doves hate nukes because they are sure that one day they will be used. Hawks hate nukes because their existence at your opponent means that's one less country you can fight a war with. Neither, though, has the brains to understand what nukes have actually accomplished. - Reply to this comment
- Sorry edward1975-2009 , but George W. Bush's administration already bankrupted this nation long before Obama even announced his intention to run for President. We owed over 1 trillion to China alone, before Obama took office, and the bank bailout bill passed while Bush was still in Office. (yes Obama voted for it, but so did McCain!!)
- Reply to this comment
- Someone has to pave the way to make sure our children's future safe and prosperous. Isn't anyone tired of the USA being the "world's police department"? Especially when the other countries are tired of us being in their business. Cutting down further on nuclear arsenals is a very good idea. Having none is even better. Blowing up everything and everyone on the planet is not a great way to leave our children if they survive.
- Reply to this comment
- by IThoughtItWasFunny2 July 6, 2009 11:45 AM PDT
pffffffft...denial, evasion, lying, propagandizing...and thinking people are too stupid to see what you are doing...
rowdy describing rowdy - Reply to this comment
- The stupidity of the Right, still caught in the grips of the cold war continue their shrill cry to watch for the Communists under every bed, at every corner. Even--- if they've lived up their argreements on disarmament all the way back to Kennedy years.
- Reply to this comment
- Well if you call getting a weapons treaty a waste of time then I guess, yeah. It was.
However, you must remember that even Republican Presidents like Reagan visited the "then" Soviet Union.
Was that a waste of time or him taking a vacation at taxpayers expense? - Reply to this comment
