WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.
Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama’s 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.
No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to around 1,000 to 1,100, 700 to 800, or 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.
The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.
This is insane, unless you go with my theory that Obama wants to destroy America as a World Power. Then it makes sense. This would potentially reduce our stockpiles to levels on par with Britain and France (and Israel, for that matter). This would be a low enough level for a determined Enemy to be able to reach parity fairly quickly once stocks of fissionables were available and the technical hurdles were overcome (read Iran). Obama is the most dangerous President the United States has ever had. It will take us decades to recover from his first term. If he is given a Second Term, we may never recover.
Tags: Nuclear Weapons
That is my take.
If this traitor wins a second term, I’m not sure if I should start learning Chinese or arab-ick, as to better serve my new masters. /
Not sure how much better off we would be under Romney than chairman obama.
Guess it’s too early to start drinking.
Suicide.
Is this an issue that Obozo can really win with? Are there that many Americans that want to see America disarmed in the face of true evil like Imadinnerjacket? Are there that many Americans fool enough to believe that countries like China would really disarm?
God help us if there are.
mfhorn wrote:
In his hubris, I doubt that a winning election strategy is in his calculus. His mission is to destroy our country.
citizen_q wrote:
I agree. I have long said “What would he be doing differently” if he were trying to destroy this country. I can come up with precious little. Even Carter didn’t take our disarmament to the disasterous level that Obama intends to.
@ Iron Fist:
Obama was a member of the Nuclear Freeze movement in the early 80′s. Even worse, his reductions will give China warhead superiority.
@ Rodan:
Yeah, I noticed that. He wants to draw down our nay, too, so that we are less able to contest China on the high seas. He is a total disaster just for what he is doing to us in defense. That is another palce that whatever our Republican nominee, they are prefferable to Obama.
Where the Fuck is Congress? Where the FUCK is Congress on this issue?
Common every day projection.
He hates that he was abandoned by his father, his mother and others.
He feels that he was unwanted and unloved.
He hates himself and is at ease transfering all his hate to U.S..
You can feel it all the way out here in Texas.
“Feel the Hate” should be his re-election slogan.
@ Macker:
That is a good question. They can’t force the Executive Branch to keep the nukes, but they can officially deplore the wunwise move that will lead to war. All this will do is embolden Iran and China. Only an enemy of the United States would think that is a good idea. It might be useful to force a vote on this in the Senate, just to get the Democrats on record as enemies of the US.
Those who beat their weapons into plowshares will work the fields for those that don’t.