Obama’s Call To Abolish Nuclear Weapons Is Foolish

• April 10, 2009

Not just because nuclear weapons actually exist, and that even if we got rid of ours there would never be any guarantees that our enemies would get rid of theirs, but also because the deterrent effect of nuclear arsenals has kept the world a relatively safer place since their inception.

A nuclear-free world would be a disastrous place where millions of people would be slaughtered by wars.
Let us review the record:
August will mark the 64th anniversary of the dropping of two atomic bombs in Japan to end World War II.
Those bombs saved up to 1 million American soldiers who did not have to fight in hundreds of Iwo Jima battles to subdue Japan.
In the 64 years since those bombs did their job, there have been no world wars. The horror unleashed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided a sobering lesson to the world.

For better or worse, nuclear weapons exist. At this point in the game, there’s no putting the toothpaste back in the tube as Obama seems to think we can do. So since they exist, we have got to keep ours because we can never be sure our enemies will be getting rid of theirs.

Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, International Scene, Politics

http://Array sayanything-4625

The rest of the quote…

Now, for decades, we and the Soviets have lived under the threat of mutual assured destruction; if either resorted to the use of nuclear weapons, the other could retaliate and destroy the one who had started it. Is there either logic or morality in believing that if one side threatens to kill tens of millions of our people, our only recourse is to threaten killing tens of millions of theirs? 33
I have approved a research program to find, if we can, a security shield that would destroy nuclear missiles before they reach their target. It wouldn’t kill people, it would destroy weapons. It wouldn’t militarize space, it would help demilitarize the arsenals of Earth. It would render nuclear weapons obsolete. We will meet with the Soviets, hoping that we can agree on a way to rid the world of the threat of nuclear destruction.

So may I assume that you support the Strategic Defense Initiative now? Notice he wanted to get rid of nuclear weapons only after we had a defense shield to assure that a rogue state can’t take advantage of the US being disarmed.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/realitybasedbob/ realitybasedbob

There is only one way safely and legitimately to reduce the cost of national security, and that is to reduce the need for it. And this we are trying to do in negotiations with the Soviet Union. We are not just discussing limits on a further increase of nuclear weapons. We seek, instead, to reduce their number. We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.
MadAsHell

First to fall is the “Right To Bear Arms”
Second to fall is our stockpile of nukes
Third to fall is our anti-icbm technology.
Ever read the other Obama book “How to Serve America”
ITS A COOKBOOK
Uncle Joe

I think that Reagan was quite foolish on that as well. Missiles are hardly the only way to deliver nuclear weapons. They have been miniaturized to the point of fitting into suitcases. How is any shield supposed to defend against that? If we give up all our nuclear weapons we’d still be nuked with or without a shield.
http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

Right. He’s going to stuff that genie back in the bottle.

Will he also repeal the laws of Physics and the last sixty years of Nuclear Science as well?
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 Dino2

No surprise that the most hostile people from the only country to use nukes would be against getting rid of them.

There’s no justification for nuking Japan. America will go to hell for that. Tons of bad karma.
http://www.okinawahdr.com/ okinawa hdr

We are definitely living in interesting times. Be scared when they take away your guns.
SigFan

Add up all the people killed in wars prior to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think the total would be staggering and mankind caused all that carnage without the benefit of nuclear weapons. For any rational person to think that we can just throw them away and no one else will attempt to get or even worse use them is pure foolishness indeed. Another example of this convoluted thinking is taking place here in Pittsburgh right now. Most have heard of the three policemen killed by a deranged skin-head last weekend. Now the local gun-control nuts are raising the “take all the guns away!” nonsense. As if taking the weapons away from law abiding citizens will deter criminals from obtaining them and using them. Of course, if there was an iron-clad guarantee that not one single gun existed anywhere in the world, it might actually work, but then we would simply resort to knives, bows and arrows, slingshots, poisons and on and on. Mankind will continue to prey on, hurt and destroy one another until the end of time. I for one, will retain my right and ability to try to prevent that from happening to me and mine.
robert108

Besides being uneducated in economics, little dinostem knows nothing about history or military strategy. Not surprising.
sayanything-4625

Dino, you keep saying the US is the only country to use nukes. I assume you mean during wartime, if so that would be true, if not its not even remotely true.

The US, Russia, China, Britain and France have all done above ground tests. Russia nuked several battalions of their own soldiers to see how they would react to being nuked and if they could fight on a nuclear battleground. No one knows how many were killed during or after the test. All of the countries involved in testing routinely exposed civilians to fallout from the tests either by neglect, ignorance, accident or design. Kazakhstan, the home of Semipalatinsk Polygon, was purposely used to test the effects of fallout on civilians and soldiers alike. It has been said that Kazakhstan is the most contaminated country on earth.
http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

robert108,

I think at this point we can safely conclude that dino knows nothing which does not involve excrement and/or sodomy.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

There’s no justification for nuking Japan.

One-third of the civilians of Okinawa were killed in our invasion of that Island. Apply that to the civilian population of the Japanese islands and there’s no way a person can claim that nuking those two cities didn’t save Japanese civilian lives.
andophiroxia

There’s no justification for nuking Japan. America will go to hell for that. Tons of bad karma.

You little dipshit. The Japanese were asked and ordered either via diplomatic relations and by military force that they stop their plundering, killing, and raping of Asia- China, Korea, Phillipines, to start.

Why don’t you ask the comfort women or research that subject or the abuse that the subjugated countries had to endure for their people after the Japanese invaded? How about their time in the Phillipines? Or that the whole “civiliian” population -man, woman, and child was trained into armed and hand-to-hand combat? Oh yeah, the Japanese were also known for putting our guys in horrible POW camps and forcing them and other civillians to march for long stretches of time, often wounded and sick. They also practiced vivisection on the “other people” in their OWN death camps.

Despite all repeated attempts they didn’t stop, so the US could only do one thing was to deploy the nuke. Then the Emperor’s advisors told him it wasn’t a big deal, so they deployed the second.

Clown.
FedUp

Dino, it’s always a pleasure to come here to see just what idiotic statements one human being can make. Are you, perchance, related to Joe Biden??? Jes wunderin…

Keep it up, it makes the rest of the world look a bit brighter!
http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

It’s true that nuclear weapons are keeping massive globe-trotting conventional wars from getting going. Beyond a certain point between the nuclear powers, a tactical nuke becomes a greater and greater temptation. In fact, most models of nuclear war in Europe began with conventional provocation at the East German-West German line, Soviet overrunning of allied positions, and the need to stop them with a tactical nuke. At that point, once the first one goes up, more and larger are pretty much a foregone conclusion.

BTW Dino, you shouldn’t toss around ideas like going to hell unless you want to deal with where you’re headed. Never know who’s going to be waiting for you.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Obama’s Call To Abolish Nuclear Weapons Is Foolish

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments