« | »

Obama May Cut US Nukes To 1/5th Of Russia’s

From a cheering Associated Press:

US weighing steep nuclear arms cuts

February 14, 2012

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.

80 percent! That is simply staggering.

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.

Correction: this would be a mistake of historic proportions, and a politically insane unilateral disarmament.

But it would be welcomed by Vladimir Putin, the Communist Chinese and the mullahs of Iran and the ‘Arab Spring’ – and of course their allies in our news media and the Democrat Party.

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

Needless to say, Congress doesn’t get a say in any of this. Mr. Obama can just continue to gut our military without a peep from them.

The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.

Which was already a dangerous reduction.

A level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons would take the U.S. back to levels not seen since 1950 when the nation was ramping up production in an arms race with the Soviet Union. The U.S. numbers peaked at above 12,000 in the late 1980s

Gee, what happened in the late 1980s? Oh, that’s right. We won the Cold War.

[A]nd first dropped below 5,000 in 2003.

And look how wildly successful our foreign policy has been since 2003.

Obama has often cited his desire to seek lower levels of nuclear weapons, but specific options for a further round of cuts had been kept under wraps until the AP learned of the three options now on the table

Obama has wanted to strip our country of its nuclear weapons ever since he was at Columbia back in 1983, if not before.

But notice how the American public is not allowed to hear about such vital decisions by this, the most transparent administration in the history of the country.

The U.S. already is on track to reduce to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads by 2018, as required by New START. As of last Sept. 1, the United States had 1,790 warheads and Russia had 1,566, according to treaty-mandated reports by each.

And we believe the Russians, because they never lie – especially when it comes to nuclear treaties.

The treaty does not bar either country from cutting below 1,550 on their own.

Which Vladimir Putin will be doing any minute now.

By the way, if we cut our nuclear weapons down to 300, Russia will have five times more, at 1,550. (And, given their tradition of cheating on treaties, they probably have many times more.)

In fact, China has more than 300 nuclear weapons. Probably a lot more.

But what is there to worry about?

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, February 15th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

11 Responses to “Obama May Cut US Nukes To 1/5th Of Russia’s”

  1. finebammer59 says:

    ron paul must be beaming!

    • River0 says:

      Since when does the president reign as king? Where the HELL is the GOP? Are they acquiescing quietly to this and allowing Obummer become a dictator? It’s despicable, the silence from our side.

  2. mr_bill says:

    Just last week nerobama’s media squad was out telling everybody that would listen that the regime “would not unilaterally disarm”….when it came to campaign fundraising. It wasn’t going to let the GOP have a monopoly on superPACs during the campaign. When it comes to our national security, he’s happy to unilaterally disarm. Gotta love this regime’s priorities.

    Its very telling that they only use war language when they talk about campaigning, never when it comes to actual war.

  3. Astravogel says:

    It’s the old old question of “Guns or Butter?”
    If you get rid of the guns, you can make
    butter for your conquerors. Or, in the case
    of the Nazi’s, they’ll make butter out of you.

  4. Petronius says:

    I wish I could believe that this disaster of a Presidency was simply due to Nerobama’s well-meant but blundering policies and misplaced priorities. However, if he were really that inept, then the law of averages would catch up with him and at some point he would, on a random act of pure chance, do something that was not designed to make America weaker, more vulnerable, poorer, less free, and that was not designed to injure old allies and encourage America’s enemies.

    But this has not been the case, so I am reluctantly forced to conclude that the destruction is deliberate.

    Sorry Mr Romney, but Nerobama is not well-intentioned but misguided. This disarmament in the face of Iran, Russia, militant Islam, Venezuela, North Korea, China, and other present and future enemies is not a miscalculation. The demonization, criminalization, and predation upon innocent Americans because of their class, age, race, or religion is not happening by chance nor as a result of poor judgment. It is happening because Nerobama is an anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-business, anti-Christian, and anti-white racist Bolshevik thug. Even worse, he is a twisted, arrogant predator. His actions look stupid to you because you are seeing them through the prism of your values –– the values of one of those people whom he hates, of one of his “enemies.”

    Look at his results from his perspective, and you can understand why he thinks he is a success.

    • finebammer59 says:


      “if we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. this is the last stand on earth.”

      “freedom is never so close to slipping from our grasp as it is this moment.”

      “those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state, have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. they call their policy accommodation, and they say if we’ll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he’ll forget his evil ways and learn to love us.”


      i watched this a thousand times. i could watch it a thousand more. i told over and over we have no ronald reagan running.

      no sh!t.

      we could dig up this man’s cold, dusty bones and have a better candidate than mitt romney.

    • BigOil says:

      Petronius – you have identified the elephant in the room that most people refuse to acknowledge. The gravest danger our republic will likely face is from the enemy within.

      How can you even begin to defeat the enemy when you do not understand them?

  5. tranquil.night says:

    He ain’t a boy-king anymore. The past couple weeks of power grabs are just a taste of what’s to come under a second term. The Papa Doc full court press with the rest of utopian-authoritarian agenda is on night and day, and the Republican Establishment is still hibernating. Petronius nails it.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      It occurred to me today that this may be the republicans strategy, albeit a very ill-advised one.

      That is, to let Obama win by offering a “showpiece” president who none of the conservatives like, which, the repugnican elite will naturally go for, then hope that the people elect a hugely repugnican congress and senate. The advantage of this is the killing of any more legislation from D’Ohbama and, if he tries his end-run moves, then the congress and senate work together to destroy him politically, professionally and personally, as in, a come-uppance for the way they treated Nixon.

      I’m pretty sure that if Mr Ears gets a second term and there is a majority repugnican congress and senate, that this is a possibility BUT…..I also think it is a very slim possibility and if this is the strategy, it is ill-advised because there’s no guarantee that the people will hit the polls in November and vote in more repugnicans to the senate though the house of reps may stay close to the same number. It’s also ill-advised because if you feel, as a member of the stupid party that you need an overwhelming majority to get anything accomplished and thus, find courage-in-a-bottle via the people you’re surrounded with who are like-thinkers, then there’s a distinct lack of courage.

      I am reminded of my uncle, who, at 5′ 6″ when confronted by a bunch of burly teenagers simply told them, “You’re gonna have to kill me, cuz I’ll keep fightin’ ya till I die and if you win today, I’ll hunt each one of you down and make you wish you were never born.” Yes, he was Irish. And true to his word, he hunted down each one of those teenagers and put them in the hospital one-by-one.

      This is not a call to violence but simply making the philosophical point of where we are in the situation. Boehner, the coward, who said, “There’s nothing we can do; We’re just a fraction of the whole government”. (paraphrasing) But then, I look at true leaders who, when the odds were against them, they either won the fight or at least gave the opponent such a bloody nose they thought three times before going at it again.

      I just wrote a letter to Jim DeMint who I’m tired of hearing “brave talk” from and his asking for more money. There are no leaders, only slick maneuver-type guys who do NOT know how to fight. They fear a real, down-and-dirty fight and believe it is something to be avoided. They would rather have nobody win than win through a proper loud, all-out argument. This smacks of, as Rush calls it, “The wussification of America”. I hate it and I hate that my elected representatives are so afraid of the media that they would rather sit in the back like they were told to than to stand up and point their finger in Obama’s face and call him the fascist that he is. It’s so easy to do…all the evidence is there…it’s irrefutable. Rush just did it in his opening segment. If someone would sit in congress and just list every single thing this a-hole has done since 2009, the place would be silent and the facts would hang in the air with icicles hanging off of them.

      It will never happen. Cowards. All of them. I’ve even lost faith in Issa.

    • tranquil.night says:

      You bring up a lot of points.

      First, that the establishment is quietly under the belief that Obama is unbeatable, and the Party’s best hope is to secure Congress under the least threatening nominee. That is Rush’s theory too.

      Here is why that frightens me: Paul Ryan says on the current trajectory we have 2-3 years to address our debt in a way we can choose to before it gets out of our control. Wealth is fleeing this country. Much of the rest of the nation’s capital remains on the sidelines, praying for elections to restore common sense in Washington. We have an out of control regime which will be emboldened beyond compare. Nothing in their behavioral characteristics suggest they wouldn’t start making Chavez look like a lightweight. Considering all that, I’d even call Paul Ryan’s estimate optimistic.

      In short I really believe this is ballgame, and that difference in perspective is probably my core disagreement with Romney and the Establishment, more than anything in the record, or any tactical play. If you don’t see it, and it doesn’t provoke a sense of personal constitution like Rusty’s uncle, then there’s not enough time to teach it to someone who wants to lead the effort to stop what’s happening.

      Regarding the Republicans, your dispiritedness is much sympathized, but it really does amount to the leadership. As timid as Boehner is publically, his office is not afraid to throw their weight around when it comes to their OWN caucus. McConnell quadruply so, God have mercy on his soul.

      Issa, DeMint – they’re kept muzzled, especially Issa on his proceedings and how he can’t appear too ‘partisan.’ He’s moving to hold Holder in contempt! And the Republicans are content with the media having largely yawned at F&F and CronyGate.

      DeMint has fought too.. he was an early and instrumental Roughrider who whipped support and held the line against the debt increase deal and for Cut, Cap, and Balance.

      They need support. As Sarah said at CPAC, they need to be let into leadership roles. But the establishment seems threatened by that. The nagging questions for me are who are the useful idiots and who are the willing accomplices with the Demopoops.

  6. Anonymoose says:

    Take you pick as who to worry about more; China or a resurgent unified South America or good old Russia. China holds a lot of our money and manufactures a large portion of our goods. The assumption has always been that they’re a vast poor country of factory workers eager to take American dollars but they’re modernizing fast.

    Cutting our weapons to 300 voluntarily is simply insane. The Soviet Union knew as well as we did about the 72 hour rule; they highly outnumbered us but their equipment was crude and poorly maintained, and after about three days of fighting things would begin breaking down. Our people figured that up.

    Backing that up was the nuclear power; if they went to the last resort the result would be at best a stalemate where both sides would have enormous losses, and at worst a major defeat.

    But with a 5 to 1 nuclear advantage and a more modernized military…..okay, they just need a crisis or a radical leader, you know someone would be thinking about it. Even China might start thinking that’s even terms for them.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »