Obama Nuke deal=No big Deal…

on

No matter where you stand or how you slice it.

Deterrence?

This has become a somewhat laughable proposal. It has been time,logic and self-preservation interests that assure we don’t launch. The world will need to go to a very dark place to ever be lit up by A-Bombs.

Cutting is Bad!

Actually it isn’t. nukes are an expensive tool in ones toolkit and one you are likely to never ever use. There is something to be said about having less of them. One less=more security. I’ll only speak for the US on this one but having less of them hanging about isn’t a bad thing. Since we are still upgrading them and deploying better ones to replace obsolete ones less is still kinda like more. If one believes in first strikes being aimed at silo based missiles and grounded bombers you gots’ some problems. The new era of nukes isn’t about trying to destroy the other sides deployable products. Having less therefore is cool ‘cuz now more than ever you need to find them,that is if you believe in first strike old school. Where does that leave us? Well now deterrence comes in the form of each side aiming for populations first time.

This is one sided!

Not really but it isn’t really good if you actually care about bipartisan participation. The Russians are coming into this having recently deployed advanced ICBMs as well as promising to back out if they ever deem our ABM deployments as a threat. Seeing as the Russians and every other likely opponent has advanced their non nuclear missile technology we MUST try to offer a defense. This on any given day will allow Russia to have an excuse. Will they ever do that? I don’t know or care,I’m just saying it’s there.

One thing is really dumb here so stop patting yourself on the back.

The new START Obama version will have MIRV’s(multiple independent re-entry vehicles) be taken out of service. This in my opinion will actually have the opposite effect of what the tree huggers,peaceniks and diplomacy whores think it will. If nothing else a MIRV equipped missile has one thing going for it. IT SAYS YOU MEAN BUSINESS! You see if you truly believe in deterrence and maintaining the horror of nuclear war you gotta love MIRV’s. You sit around with single warhead missiles you are then perversely entitled to a “minor” response,or worse a “simple” focused attack. Cut it out! You want to have nukes and you ever launch you have to be all in. You see with a MIRV there is true mutual deterrence. 1. You don’t want me to destroy multiple cities.2. I don’t want to destroy multiple cities.

Obama is the greatest!

Absolutely fucking not! He gets to take credit for something that means little in reality and everything in certain circles.For me he loses any love due to the MIRV issue,others will take him on for other reasons.Although I can give him props for cleaning up the arsenal,he ends up screwing the pooch there since he opposes Yucca.

Advertisements

25 Comments

  1. Elric66 says:

    al-Thuggy is “president” so we have no deterrence anyway.

  2. Alfie says:

    Curious if you think in the short term,say 2-6 years we actually face a state sponsored mushroom in the States?

  3. Elric66 says:

    Honestly. It wouldnt surprise me one bit. But then when 9-11 happened my first thought was that it took long enough. I understand the enemy and I understand evil. al-Thuggy and his goons are doing their best to weaken us. Unless we win in 2010 and replace these 5th columnists with real Americans that want to undo the damage these evil people are doing, you can bank on us being hit with a nuke or a bio weapon.

  4. Rutherford says:

    Alfie, I honestly don’t get you sometimes. Now, I understand START is not radical. It’s a modest move toward nuclear disarmament. The part I don’t understand is why you can’t say “ok, this isn’t a major development but at least Obama is doing something I basically support.” Instead you use the MIRV issue as your excuse to dis Obama once again.

    Will he ever be able to do anything that passes muster with you?

    While I’m here …. I’m contemplating a post on the subject but I wanted to get your read on it first. What do you think about Israel’s refusal to acknowledge or deny that they have the bomb? I’ll leave the question open ended. I’ll save my opinion for my post should I choose to write it.

  5. Alfie says:

    In all fairness Rutherford I did say:
    I can give him props for cleaning up the arsenal…
    my follow up of
    he ends up screwing the pooch there since he opposes Yucca. in my opinion doesn’t necessarily exclude the props I just obviously don’t like the whole due to some parts.
    As for MIRV I would prove consistent on that point regardless of the Oval occupant if afforded the opportunity.
    Also it should be made clear that I don’t have the same motivations as others regard disarmament.
    As for your question. Since Sovereignty Matters is my guiding light for foreign policy I don’t care if Israel has nukes or not. I’ll share an old post that supports that sort of
    Iran and the nuclear questionI particularly enjoyed that post.

  6. I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if we took a nuclear hit in the near future myself. I also seriously doubt that it would come via Russia. After all, even with built in redundancy both them and ourselves can still destroy each other a few times over.

    Now, Iran or North Korea? Those are real possibilities…

  7. Alfie says:

    I think the only credible state based attack comes from North Korea. I’m talking about bombs just to be clear. The potential for “dirty bombs” and the like unfortunately runs the gambit.

  8. Elric66 says:

    “What do you think about Israel’s refusal to acknowledge or deny that they have the bomb?”

    Hmmmm al-thuggy’s antisemitism is rubbing off on the drone.

  9. Alfie says:

    Alfie, I honestly don’t get you sometimes.
    On a side note Rutherford I’m going to take that as a compliment. Thank You!

  10. Alfie says:

    In fairness Rutherford could be trying to wrap his head around Bibi firing back from recent snubs. I’ll await his post.

  11. Elric66 says:

    Good luck on that Alfie. al-Thuggy hates Israel and wants to toss them under the jihadist bus so like any good drone, thats what he wants too.

  12. LOL says:

    How does discussing Israel’s refusal to admit it is a nuclear power equate to anti-semitism?

  13. Rutherford says:

    All I can say to “LOL” is thank you. However you well know that this logic is typical of the man whose name cannot be spoken. 🙂

    Alfie, I read your article from 2007. I agree with your basic premise that Iran actually puts itself in the cross-hairs if it successfully develops a nuke … and obviously if it deploys one. I do have one question for you though. Is it possible that Russia’s stance has changed since you wrote your article? Yesterday Medvedev brought up Iran in his speech and he didn’t have to. Was he just pandering?

    Also, don’t you agree that at least one down side of removing Hussein was that we no longer have an Iraq capable of keeping Iran in check?

  14. Elric66 says:

    Told you Alfie. Drone’s approve of diplomatic snubs of our allies if al-Thuggy does it.

  15. LOL says:

    Obama is the worst diplomat we have. Instead of being a rude asshole, he needs to do what GHWB did–threaten to cut off aid to Israel. He will be surprised how much leverage $2+BB buys.

    I would like Elric to expand on how discussing Israel’s refusal to admit it is a nuclear power equates to anti-Semitism.

  16. Elric66 says:

    “I would like Elric to expand on how discussing Israel’s refusal to admit it is a nuclear power equates to anti-Semitism.”

    That’s nice

  17. Alfie says:

    I think Russia is playing a game,in fact they are obviously playing the Big Game. They have been on again and off again regards building a reactor,selling ss-300’s and supporting sanctions. No Russia hasn’t done anything to change my mind.
    I also don’t think Iraq w/ Hussein was really keeping Iran in check.

  18. LOL says:

    So you are dodging the question and refusing to support your own words?

  19. Elric66 says:

    “So you are dodging the question and refusing to support your own words?”

    Im doing what Im doing. 🙂

  20. LOL says:

    Which is dodging the question and refusing to support your own baseless accusations of anti-Semitism.

    Thank you for clarifying that. And have a great day.

  21. Elric66 says:

    “Which is dodging the question and refusing to support your own baseless accusations of anti-Semitism.”

    Whatever you say. 🙂

  22. Alfie says:

    The actual strength of Israel is open for speculation and that possibly works to Israels advantage given the neighborhood,let’s all be honest on that at least.
    I think one could say it isn’t anti semitism at work,I’d also say that it fails to be anti zionism but does indeed seem anti Israel. If people can’t appreciate the nuances of the differing “anti’s” I guess I’m standing alone. Of note there are a number of msm types looking at the evolving diplomatic rift.

  23. Elric66 says:

    You should look into al-Thuggy’s “church” that he attended for 20 years.

  24. Alfie says:

    Well I’ve been accused of not willing to give Obama an inch on policy and I think I refuted that.
    Well I have to chip away some more at the fandom if not Obama himself. In fact I think I’m more against the fandom worship thing than Obamas policy.
    Would it not have been a good idea to invite Iran,Syria and North Korea?
    I think it would’ve been and would’ve also been a brave move on O’s part and consistent with engagement.
    South Africa……Please cut this out here and now. They are not an example,at least not the way they paint it at this summit. South Africa made the intelligent cost projection decision on having a nuclear arsenal. they also went full monty and closed their power reactors. They now have electrical shortages which look to be solved by….wait for it ….nukes.

  25. Alfie says:

    Foreign Policy mag and a number of other sources have offered up some excellent points on this whole thing. Many Obama fans continue to make this 47 nation pony show a headliner, world changing event and that’s pail worty. I will say there are some Obama opponents that are offering up some criticism that is beyond the pale. I believe, with admitted bias,that I have placed well in this. Bottom line this summit was nothing.

Comments are closed.