Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal

[Truth2Tell]

Source: The Guardian UK

Pentagon told to map out radical cuts as president prepares to chair UN talks

Julian Borger
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 20 September 2009 21.30 BST

Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country's arsenal, the Guardian can reveal.

Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.

Those options include:

• Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.

• Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.

• Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/20/barack-obama-us-nuclear-weapons

[Old Hob]

1. abolishing nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons have saved the lives of countless millions of people

what good would come from abolishing them?

[Truth2Tell]

2. you forgot your sarcasm thingy. nt

[Old Hob]

6. No I didn't.

try to recall what was going on in the world before there were nuclear weapons
edit typo

[Truth2Tell]

8. people killing each other

just like now...

...except without nuclear weapons.

[Old Hob]

11. No, not just like now. nothing like now. Go back to history class. watch the history channel.

the warfare up to the end of WW2 was conducted on a biblical scale.

[Truth2Tell]

19. ahhh, too much history channel...

that explains a lot Old Hob.

[Kurska]

20. More men fought at the battle of Kursk then in the entire Vietnam war. n/t

[Truth2Tell]

21. The average annual rainfall of the Amazon Basin

is 80 inches.

[Kurska]

23. Statisics are obviously useless. more germans soldiers DIED at the battle of stalingrad then we have

deployed in afghanistan and Iraq COMBINED.

Yes, but as you said the idea that world war 2 was the largest war in human history is a complete joke believed only by history channel junkies right?

[Truth2Tell]

25. No, I said nothing of the kind. Are you reading the right thread? nt

[Kurska]

27. Then what did you mean by " ahhh, too much history channel..."

Also what is flawed with his interpretation of world war 2, it is entirely accurate, it was a vast epic war and we haven't even seen a shadow of the scale it was fought on since it.

[Truth2Tell]

29. history channel = pop culture version history

in my humble observation anyway.

apparently it leads people to believe things like:

that WWII was some sort of war to end all wars, rather than part of an ongoing continuum of war.

Or that nuclear weapons have provided a deterrent against conventional war that conventional weapons could not have.

Or that our criminal use of nukes against the civilian population of Japan in some way saved American lives by preventing a mythical million killed Americans in a mythical prevented invasion.

Or that America (or any other nation) has any kind of moral right to point the gun of nuclear annihilation at the head of any other nation.

history channel seems to lead people to believe silly things like these

[Kurska]

31. WWII was the largest war in human history, are you seriously disputing this?

The Nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are complicated issues, I'm not even going to attempt to engage them here.

I fail to see how nuking Hiroshima or Nagasaki was somehow much worse then what happened in a myriad of other cities during world war 2.

[Truth2Tell]

32. I'm not disputing the size of WWII. Never have. nt

[Kurska]

33. Do you admit that no war since world war 2 has come close to the scale of WWII?

[Truth2Tell]

34. do I "admit" it? I've never suggested otherwise.

Who are you arguing with? :shrug:

[Kurska]

38. Then what is the problem with viewing world war 2 as a massive event in Human history?

Just based on scale world war I could be viewed as little more then a build up to world war II, in everything from men deployed, to nations involved and resulting casualities, world war 2 dwarfs any other war in human history.

[Truth2Tell]

41. What does that have to do with this thread?

Are you suggesting that without nuclear weapons we would revert back to a WWII level of catastrophic warfare? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

[Javaman]

53. That certainly was an odd tangent to your original posts. nt

[LanternWaste]

76. Seld delete

[TrogL]

64. How in the world can you discuss using nuclear weapons WITHOUT discussing their actual use?

The nearest destructive event to those bombings was probably the firebombing of Dresden.

Other than an insignificant contribution to global warming, it had no long-term effect such as radiation and fallout.

Testing a large conventional weapon such as a bunker buster has nowhere's near the consequences of a nuclear test.

Also, a hydrogen bomb has never been fired in anger.

[indepat]

67. Like the history channel's drawing parallels between Hitler that evil Saddam who was a clear and

imminent danger to the world 'cause he had the evil intent, the army and navy and air force, the armaments, and the means to deliver all these to any place on earth in a matter of minutes? Saddam was surely one scary menacing dude. :shrug:

[wordpix]

44. may I interrupt this blah, blah to say, THANK YOU, Pres. Obama!

No one "needs" a nuclear arsenal and never has. Trillions wasted for a maybe-if Armageddon nuke scenario, and if someone actually "had" to use it, his nation would be politically isolated or pulverized by those who did not agree this "had" to happen.

Prepare for the repukes to claim this new policy will make us unsafe.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bear425]

3. Do tell...

:popcorn:

[safeinOhio]

5. Abolish? I thought he said reduce.

Reduce the potential of killing billions from the result of human error.

[BeyondGeography]

7. Don't worry Old Hob, we'll still be able to kill everyone in the world many times over

Just not as much as before.

[Old Hob]

9. The article says the ultimate goal is to abolish nuclear weapons

whose telling the truth?
Please don't imply that I wish to see nukes used in any capacity. It is their ability to deter war that makes them useful to me. If it were not for their existence, WW2 would have never ended. And I shudder to think of what a modern version of that war will be like; as such, I am perfectly content to maintain the MAD doctrine. What is it they say about the road to hell?

[bertman]

35. Old Hob, I agree with your comments regarding MAD, but we are no longer in that

scenario. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union we have no centralized control over the nukes that were arrayed against the Western Powers. This has lead to all kinds of problems with the proliferation of nuclear weapons and weapons technology even to groups and places that are apparently still unknown.

Eliminating ALL nuclear weapons is a laudable LONG-TERM goal, but for now, the idea of dismantling the old, decrepit arsenal and using that as an inducement to get other nuclear nations to dismantle their arsenals, seems to be a good first step.

If President Obama's idea succeeds in dramatically reducing the number of nukes, then the big brains will have plenty of time to come up with ways to reduce even more of the deadly things.

Of course, by then, we will have some other type of doomsday weapon that none of us have yet conceived of--none of us that is, except the people who conjure up these abominations.

[Big_Mike]

71. While the Soviet Union is no more, the Federated States of Russia

under Putin is still there. Look in the sidebar of the article, where it talks about testing. It mentions that the author believes the Kursk was lost due to testing a new version of a nuclear torpedo. He continues to think as the head of the old KGB, and I do not doubt he is actually running the country as the ventriloquist behind whatever dummy holds the office of the President of the FSR.

I worked with nukes in the military. Those weapons that were designed in the '60's, '70s, and '80s were designed for periodic testing to ensure functionality. That means either full up subsurface nuclear yields or non-nuclear emplacement and detonation using external explosive devices to verify that the weapon class continues to function. This has not been done in years. Personally, I think that most of the weapons would now be fizzles, not nuclear detonations. I had really hoped that the new designs would have been completed, verified and put on active service. Unfortunately, I see our safety as much lower now than during the Clinton years, let alone what * did.

I think back to the Peace dividend, which meant we no longer had to be able to fight two wars simultaneously. Hmmm, that one didn't work out very well, did it?

I am afraid this decision will be just as bad as that one, that cut our military strength much too low. We had enough time to correct the problems from reducing too far. I only hope we have time to overcome this decision as well.

[Javaman]

51. Is that you mr. teller? nt

[Winterblues]

58. I think the term was MAD

Mutual Assured Destruction and it certainly lives up to it's name....There is a better way..

[LanternWaste]

77. self-delete

[Gregorian]

12. In theory. But tell that to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In theory you could be right. But it's a very twisted and sad theory. I say that living in a world where we live in so much fear of our brothers and sisters that we feel the need to produce a poisonous bomb that could kill us all is a diseased way of living.

And I argue that it hasn't saved any lives. It's very easy to argue that it has killed more than it has saved.

Furthermore, the money we spent developing it is part of the reason why we're behind the world in things like health care. We neglected to spend money directly for the people, and spent it instead on theoretical military purposes.

I can see how being a threat would seem like a safe thing to be. I don't agree that it's a good way to live.

[AllentownJake]

13. Tokyo and Dresden actually had it worse

[Kurska]

15. So did Stalingrad, Leningrad and Nanking n/t

[Truth2Tell]

43. Thanks guys, for proving the point

that nukes aren't necessary for strategic deterrence. Conventional weapons can obviously wreak equally devastating havoc.

[Old Hob]

49. proving the point? You're missing the point friend.

There have been no more Nankings, no more Staligrads, no more Dresdens, no more Battles of the Rhine, etc. That isn't because of conventional deterrents. The complex forces that lead men to wage that kind of total war against one another have been checked by nuclear missiles. Mankind was on a collision course with WW3 after WW2. Roosevelt knew it, Eisenhower knew it, Churchill knew it, Stalin knew it, Einstein knew it, and Oppenheimer knew it. The Bomb and MAD prevented it from occurring. What there has been; however, are multiple outbreaks of tempered hostility that, in the absence of the bomb, could have easily escalated into total war. The bombs suck but they serve not as weapons of war but deterrents to war.

[Ignis]

56. Perhaps you've never heard of Fallujah?

:banghead:

[Javaman]

59. some people have very selective memories...

reminds me of a certain political party of republican variety. LOL

I'm always a little suspicious of people who don't fill out or hide their profiles.

[Ignis]

62. Yeah, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt.

But the "more nukes makes more peace" argument makes it tough to do so.

[wickerwoman]

66. Or Rwanda, or Bosnia,

or anything else that's happened since 1946.

[mbperrin]

63. Sure about that Eisenhower support? Ike opposed bombing Japan, and

so did Leahy, chief of staff to the President.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4038

Contrary to the notion that no top adviser was against the decision, for instance, Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to the President and presiding officer of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, felt (as his diaries and memoirs both show) that the "Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender…"

The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan…n being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children…

Leahy reports he made his views quite clear to the President. We also know from minutes of White House meetings and other documents that on the basis of intelligence assessments several advisers urged Truman to assure the Emperor a nominal postwar role to facilitate a surrender. Although he decided to use the atomic bomb first we also know the President did not object to this modification (and, of course, the terms were indeed ultimately changed).

General Eisenhower's views are also instructive. During Secretary Stimson's "recitation of the relevant facts," Eisenhower reports:

I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.
"Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'…," Eisenhower believed. "It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing…"

[IDFbunny]

74. Fuel-air bombs

can nearly as destructive as a small nuke.

The big killer of the future will be germs.

[Truth2Tell]

18. a diseased way of living

You nailed it there Gregorian. MAD is the most apt anagram in history.

[exboyfil]

26. Actually nukes give you a great bang for your buck (so to speak)

that is one of the reasons it became a cornerstone of our deterence in Europe policy. If the Soviet tanks start rolling we start nuking (not saying it was right just giving history). We were not willing to spend the green to offer a conventional deterent.

That being said I am all for whatever reductions can be had in negotiation with the Russians and Chinese.

[Mrs. Overall]

36. Are you a liberal?

Reading through your various posts on this thread you sound exactly my Republican relatives.

Nukes are their security blanket.

I could say more, but I don't want to be rude.

[Javaman]

52. It's funny, once you posted that question, the poster stopped responding...

interesting, isn't it?

[Ignis]

57. "Nuke em all, let Gawd sort em out" isn't a progressive value?

Who knew? :rofl:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

40. *LOL* Good grief!!!

:rofl:

[sudopod]

50. Wow, so how DID you get a away from that museum tour group

Mr. Crazy Man?

[fascisthunter]

70. it's sad if you really think that way

The World isn't that evil, and its time people live without the actions of the paranoid, who consistently put everyone in much more danger than before. Paranoia is self-fulfilling, and cowardly to the point of being dangerous.

[appamado amata padam]

4. Finally

bringing some reason to counteract the madness.

[NecklyTyler]

68. Finally we have a true leader that will take a real step in reducing our insane addiction to weapons

President Obama is one of a select few who have a place a leaders in this world

[appamado amata padam]

72. Yes;

I haven't been thrilled with everything he's done, but he's right on, on this one.

Peace.

[BuelahWitch]

10. I was going to throw a hissy fit over them not calling him President Obama

But it's a UK newspaper, so I might cut them some slack. Not much, but some.

[Kurska]

14. "eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether" ....

HAHA, OH WOW.

I needed a laugh, seriously does he seriously think thats going to happen. I love you man, but that isn't ever going to happen.

Maybe if we just abolished weapons we wouldn't have anymore violence? That sounds like a plan that is bound to work.

[AllentownJake]

16. Reagan said the same thing

Do you think he meant it?

[Kurska]

17. Wouldn't surprise me if he did, Reagan was was senile and crazy.

I doubt Obama really means this though, he is too smart of a guy to think he can rid the world of nukes.

[proteus_lives]

22. I hope they stay sane on this.

Nukes have prevented WWIII, WIV and WWV.

[thelordofhell]

24. We shouldn't have a single land based nuclear weapon

We have enough nuclear submarines that can deliver faster and better than any land based nuke. Keeping nukes off the land should be a priority.

[ConcernedCanuk]

28. USA has so many nukes that are obsolete and/or unreliable that getting rid of them means nothing.

.
.
.

You bet your as that the most modern and deadly nukes are already in the submarines lurking around the China coast and the ME.

Mainland nukes would be only needed if the ones already deployed around Asia and Europe failed to do whatever the USA decided to use them for.

USA has so many bases around the globe that it would be literally impossible to nuke the mainland.

The USA empire will end through financial ruin, or some sort of biological attack.

The USA is in NO danger of a nuke attack from anyone.

That's my canuk opinion anyhoo . . .

[skipos]

30. Good Lord, there is some Free Republic mentality going on in this thread

Do we really need the ability to blow up the world 100 times? No we don't. We will always have enough weapons to kill everyone on the planet at least once. That will keep the fraidy cats safe from commies, muslims or whoever they are currently scared of.

[Mrs. Overall]

37. +1

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

39. Sounds like a dream come true, to me. I can't believe anyone's complaining.

:shrug:

[harmonicon]

42. propaganda works, I guess

I don't know either....

[wordpix]

46. +1

or we could nuke bomb whoever we want to stay the "world's most powerful nation" some claim we are, and inherit radioactive earth.

[unkachuck]

45. a very good move....

....we will never be able to convince capable nations not to develope nuclear weapons if we continue maintain a stockpile of thousands....

....we were the first to use nuclear weapons, repugs intimidate nuclear and non-nuclear nations with the implied use of nuclear weapons, our credibility on the subject is minimal....

....but not to try to reduce or eliminate these weapons from the world and/or the necessity for having them will only encourage their development, spread and ultimate use....

[pa28]

48. This means a much smaller military.

It's not just about the warheads; it's the planes, missiles and submarines required to deliver these weapons.

This will be interesting to watch as I'm sure the defense lobby is cranking up right now to protect their business. If Obama really does take on the military industrial complex and win his legacy is secure IMO. The brawl over a radically smaller military will make healthcare reform look like an Oxford boxing match.

[Stumbler]

54. A laudable, but unreachable goal.

So long as the threat of warfare remains, so will the means of ultimate destruction. Until we, humanity, can come together and unite as a species to stop fighting each other over resources, land, power over each other, etc, the world's nuclear capabilities will remain with us. But the question is; Is there ANYTHING that can unite humanity on a global level? Just watching the GOP's endless opposition to everything proposed by Obama, Dems, Progressives and anything Liberal, leaves me feeling that nukes will be a 'strategic asset' until my life is over.

[krabigirl]

55. Wonderful, but I doubt this will happen.

[Xenotime]

60. We should get rid of them all.

[Jennicut]

61. We all know we can nuke each other to death if we want to.

And what right do we have to say to other countries who want nuclear weapons when we won't bring down our level of them either?

[Akoto]

65. I can see slashing the quantity, but cutting them entirely?

That would be a great thing, but I don't see it happening at this point in human history. Mutually assured destruction is a terrible concept, but it has also been a deterrent to the actual use of nukes. If we completely rid ourselves of our arsenal, we'll be in a very awkward position.

Perhaps, at some Utopian point in the future, we can do this. All armed nations disarming at the same time.

[NecklyTyler]

69. K&R

[NickB79]

73. Just remember to keep a few big ones around, in case of rogue asteriods. NT

[Odin2005]

75. That's the CHANGE I voted for!!!

:woohoo:

Unless nuclear weapons are totally abolished it is not a matter of if they are ever used again, but when.