Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ 

U.S. Considering Cuts To Nuclear Arms

February 17, 2012 by  

U.S. Considering Cuts To Nuclear Arms

The Administration of President Barack Obama is weighing options for significant new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a potential 80 percent reduction in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press reported.

According to the news outlet, the most modest option under consideration by the President would be a historic step toward disarmament, and a move closer to Obama’s 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the lower end of the cuts would limit the total number of warheads to 300, according to a U.S. official.

Pentagon spokesman George Little said the details of the proposals remain classified, but confirmed that the Department of Defense had been asked to create proposals for nuclear deterrence.

“The president asked DoD to develop several alternative approaches to deterrence and stability, to include illustrative force size and postures to best support those alternatives,” Little said in a statement.

The Journal reported that the Senate in 2010 ratified the New Start pact with Russia, a treaty that set the current limit of 1,550 warheads, as the bipartisan support for its passage came after the Obama Administration pledged to modernize America’s nuclear weapons.

Filed Under: Conservative Politics, Liberty News, Other News
Personal Liberty News Desk

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “U.S. Considering Cuts To Nuclear Arms”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • 45caliber

    The entire idea is that if we disarm ourselves of all nukes, no one would ever be interested in attacking us.

    Strange philosophy to me. Personally, if I intend to attack someone, I’d want to pick someone who can’t shoot back to be safe. Yet the libs really believe that we would never be attacked if we had no weapons at all.

  • Gilgamesh_rises

    Here’s something more to consider…

    Right now there are serious divisions within the United States military regarding the forceful-imposition of government-policies upon -American- citizens. There has also been a long-standing basic belief, amongst many “law-enforcement”, and various government, agencies that there soon -will- be a state of “civil unrest” within the United States that will require the direct use of “military force… against American citizens…” by various civil, and military, authorities. They [various government institutions] have actually been preparing, and training, for this eventuality for several years. In fact, the paper-tiger of false-legality, under-pinning such actions, and the actual logistical-preparations, have all been put in place… right on schedule. And, finally, I have some personal information that there are growing, extremely serious, schisms between various elements of the U.S military and the Federal government . Put bluntly, the executive-branch knows full well that there are elements of the U.S. military that, not only -potentially- would oppose them, but, certain strata within the over-all military have actually already decided to directly oppose the Federal government’s plans (using military force, if necessary)… if certain actions are taken against the citizens of this nation by the government.

    And now, suddenly, this administration is planning to seriously “downsize” our “nuclear arsenal”. Don’t be surprised if this “down-sizing” isn’t extraordinarily selective, and amazingly tactically-beneficial to “loyal” units (“loyal” to those imposing the forceful suppression of the American People by the Federal government, that is).

    As I’ve said before,

    …What I know, is frightening. What I suspect, is terrifying. And, what I fear may be attempted, and the unavoidable results thereof, are simply horrifying.

  • Jon

    It comes back to the old story of what happened to the man who beat his sword into a plow share. He is now a slave on what used to be his freehold, working for the guy who beat a plowshare into a sword.

  • hitthedeck

    Why not! Obama has sold us out on everything else so why not defense along with reducing our military. Iran will be happy to hear the news and other countys will also like Obama’s stupid move. It will cost another billion or more to dispose of them. China will make that loan interest free.

  • ToeTagTunny

    Let’s all be realistic here.. I’m not a warmonger and I’m all for balancing our military might to match a reasonable level of progress to over-all cost.. But reducing it 80% especially when other Countries continue their build-up is simply not reasonable. It does seem that someone (no names please) is attempting to put us in harms way by leaving us with 20% of our capability to defend ourselves. Are the other major Countries viewing this as we are? Or are they wringing their hands with giddy anticipation? Would THEY even contemplate reducing their military might by just 25%..? What would 20% leave us with? Some believe we have enough weapons (of all sorts) to over-run the world ten times (an extreme exaggeration I’m sure) so let’s say one time.. On sweep over the entire world, now.. Cutting that capability by 80%.. What would that leave? What would 20% power vs 100% power from any adversary relate to our destruction? Someone is deliberately trying to manipulate this Country into an ash tray.. We really need to find exactly who is backing this up and charge every damn one of them with treason whether it be Obama or anyone else on that (ant) hill. I’m totally aghast! Thank goodness I’m laying on this slab else I’b be rolling over in my grave. This isn’t political protocol.. It’s blatant treason and our law makers are backing it up making THEM treacherous enemies of the State as well.. OFF WITH ALL THEIR HEADS!!!

    • eddie47d

      You assume that other countries are building up their arsenals. Now as China’s population grows they have increased their military personal and are top contenders and then India. Russia has less now with “only” 321,000 vs the USA with 478,000. South Korea has 560,000 vs the North 900,000. When it comes to nukes China has 240 vs our 5,113 and Russia has slightly more. Nuke countries haven’t changed and none seem to be growing. North Korea only has 10 yet we fear them. Pakistan has 110 and India has 100. UK has 225 and France has 300. Israel supposedly has 330 but the official count is 225. Yet they and we fear Iran which has zero. Go figure! China has troops in Tibet and a couple of other countries and we have troops in 170 countries and over 1000 military bases worldwide. So who is the real danger and who is the aggressor? There is a difference in being strong and being reckless.

  • Marlene B.

    Obama – and Hillary, for that matter – are in cahoots with Russia, Korea and Iran. As soon as we have no effective weapons to defend ourselves, those countries will walk in here, without one shot fired, and take over the U.S.A. The only fighting on our soil will be amongst them as they fight to be the sole owners of this country. Meanwhile, Obama (Bam-Bam) is right on schedule in other areas to destroy us. When will the Democrats realize what their irresponsible PC votes have done to this country? Notice, I said “TO” not “FOR”.

    • eddie47d

      I see Marlene is living in her MAD world. That stands for Mutually Assured Destruction or is it the other title of the Dr Strangelove movie that moves you? HOW TO BUILD THE BOMB AND LEARN TO LOVE IT. I suppose Russia and their right wingers are screaming the same thing. “If we give up our weapons the USA will march in on us”! Wasn’t it Jesus who stood on the Mount and gave the Sermon on: Blessed are the “warmongers” for they shall inherit the earth? Maybe you’ll have to look that up Marlene and get back to me.

  • eddie47d

    Even if we come down to 300 nukes (if Russia also agrees) we’d still have enough to create worldwide misery if used. Too many Dr Strangeloves posting today!

  • ONTIME

    This is another fraudulent policy called nuclear parity and the theory only makes the world a more dangerous place because now more unstable idiots have use of these weapons and your overwhelming advantage is now being depleted…this man in the WH is a dangerous hoax and should be made to cough up his credentials and oblige the law by presenting the valid BC he claims to have….

    • http://gravatar.com/allamerican82nd All American

      Right… ON TIME !!!
      Bravo, on your comment.

  • scout

    All I can say is that the dumbing down of this country has been understated…..

  • don

    obama, why don’t you put a loaded gun to your head and pull the trigger. thats the same mentality as disarming. i hate to say it but hillary was right when she more or less did’nt have a clue as far as experience on how to run this country. when are you going to do like lyndon johnson and announce that you are not going to seek a second term. all your failures have cost this country too much. are you seeking to destroy everything we have. hell, you might as well announce to the rest of the world that they can have what ever they want for free. thats just about how retarded your programs are.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001419921154 Lee

      Well let’s see they killed NASA, Hillary the Clit is now going to the U.N. to feather disarm the American citizens of there firearm rights,You have agenda 21 in the works, Then
      there is Monsanto taking the small farmers to court.Then they have gave away your children Money to the Banksters that they now owe like 36,000 dollars a piece.You have a
      D.O.J.Eric Holder who is running guns to Mexico and nothing is happening to him.
      You have 4 Presidential G.O.P. candidates running for office, That our backed by the owners of this Country WALL Street, One so he says is American that puts all his money in the Cayman Islands, One that is from Kenya running this country in the ground, He says
      CHANGE We CAN BELIEVE In. Yeah OK! Then we have Ron Paul in which There Is ongoing Voter Fraud against this great American. The establishment is scared of him
      because he has awoken the population. And for all of you that think the Clintons are great
      Do some research on who Chelsea is married to. And if you really want to be intelligent
      and know what you are talking about.Read my lip’s

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwV82J68Ixs

  • larryi

    I hate it when I read news reports that say “The U.S. is doing or going to” It should read “Obama is doing or going to” This Muslim is no way speaking for the vast majority of America. This person (obama) could be the worst traitor this Country has ever seen. Anyway raising entitlements and lowering our military budget, O’Ya that is really building a great Country. Idiots!

    • http://gravatar.com/allamerican82nd All American

      Brothers and Sisters, PLEASE, oh PLEASE do not be brainwashed into thinking what the Obama Fed says as Good is as being good for us.

      IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE !

      The traitor and his supporters must be fired ASAP.

    • eddie47d

      Since most wars are started through Fear then most of you must live for it. You attack the NWO and then turn around and buy into world wide aggression sponsored by the NWO. The more we agress with a bigger and bigger military the more other countries feel the need to counter balance that aggression. Thus more countries want nukes not less!

  • Beth

    Only if we reduce the numbers by using them. You know the saying, use it or lose it.

  • hooder

    One more step in Obama’s plan to destroy America as it is today and leave it wide open for the muslim sect to infiltrate completely.

  • JimRed

    Gee, if we just stop having so much capability to kill, everybody will LIKE us again!

    This is a small part of Obama’s master plan to reduce the U.S. to equal status with lesser nations, so they’ll “like” us! Frankly, I don’t care if they like us or not, so long as they FEAR us!

    • eddie47d

      Our military aggression is what is losing us friends JimRed. Having a threatening nuke arsenal isn’t going to deter a hopeful terrorist one bit so reducing our nukes has nothing to do with making friends. Our greatest threat is any party of Fear that puts us in these positions where nukes could be used. That would include Bush,Santorum,Gingrich,Palin,Romney,Obama,Perry or even Cain. Which party of Fear do you belong to and why are you or anybody always eager for war?

  • Ted Crawford

    How about this situation, every major power, and I would assume many other countries, have within their Defence Departments at least one computer that does nothing 24/7 but play war games. At current nuclear weapon stock pile levels, it’s certain that every game ends in a no win solution. Should one or more nuclear powers reduce their holdings to a certain level, that might change. The computer might develope a winnable solution with first strike tactics! As we reduce for peace we just might be edging ourselfs closer to WAR!

  • kerry spute

    Too bad they cannot reduce them by 100% world wide.
    Anyone who doesnt mentally campaign for that situation to occur is insane.

    • hooder

      You’re insane if you really believe that would happen.

    • Sirian

      Hmmm, “Anyone who doesn’t mentally campaign for that situation to occur is insane.”
      If that may be the case then no wonder we have so many useful idiots running around. Please, this has been protested since way back in the sixties. And what prey tell has happened? Never mind, you apparently haven’t the ability to look at the problem outside your box.

      • Charter Member

        My Bad.
        Please then Sirian,substantiate the necessity for anyone to posess NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS…..
        (aside from the fact that some alredy posess them,and use them as political bargaining tools)so that the whole world may clearly see your wisdom on the matter.
        Respectfully,Charter Member

  • Jim

    Socialist Party at its best. Disarm America for the benefit of looking good with Ivan. Obozo of course lied through his teeth about keeping promises to modernize our weapons. Never had any intention of doing so. Moron in charge believes that everyone else in the world will disarm because we go defenseless. How can anyone trust this guy? Russia and China are both fielding new weapons systems constantly including nukes and he wants to give up ours? Only answer that makes sense is that he wants us to be undefended and defeated. Just one more reason to defeat him in November. Of course, morons out there will see this as a new found order to follow right along to all of our dooms. Everyday more evil is unleashed upon us. If Obozo is reelected the evil will be unleashed upon us like no other time in history.

    • Sirian

      Very well said Jim. I agree, there are so many lemmings as well as those that never concern themselves with the seriousness of this. I suppose they are thinking it will all come out in the wash just as it does in a movie – typical sheeple for sure.

    • dave

      u cant campain for 100% nuclear disarmament,if we went that way, Russia China Iran North Korea and so on would be here so fast with the abomb threating us becaused we trusted them. As bad as it seems, Obozzo has to be defeated or eliminated.

    • Robert Smith

      How many nuclear weapons do we really need?

      After awhile all we’re gonna be doing is stirring the ashes.

      Are more nuclear weapons really going to make us safer?

      Rob

      • Ellen

        Robert, Your question may make sense if we were talking about spending money to build more nuclear weapons. These are weapons we’ve already spent the money on, so why would we get rid of them? Nuclear weapons were always intended to be a deterrent to our enemies, as we all would suffer if they were used. With Iran having nuclear capabilites, why would we even consider reducing ours at this point. Obviously, a nuclear-free world will not happen, so why is Obama pretending that it will if the US gives up their nukes? How naive can he be?

      • Sirian

        As many as the MIC, the Pentagon and Congress desires. Keep in mind the build up of nukes was due to the “Cold War” place previously. If by some remote chance we did end up having some psychopathic leader of some country – any – initiate a full scale thermo nuclear war there wouldn’t be anyone left to stir the ashes. Finally, no, we don’t need anymore nukes, we have plenty. 40 megaton on down. But nukes need to be maintained and in some instances replaced with, shall we say, fresh updated nuclear cores. As to the actual need any longer, well, the answer to that is obviously yes. Why? Due to the possibility of being struck by some other country, uh, North Korea or even Iran. Is that an outlandish statement, no, I don’t believe so. You should be able to agree with that as a possibility, not? Would there ever exist the same possibility from either Russia or China? Yes, that possibility does exist too although very doubtful. So, overall, our nuclear arsenal may be reduced over an extended period of time but as I said to begin with, as long as the MIC, the Pentagon and Congress is not willing to do just that then we have to accept it for what it is. But remember, when was the last time a nuke was actually used? It’s been a very, very long time. If that first time wasn’t enough of a display of what could actually take place yet on a much grander scale I seriously doubt if we will ever have to suffer through what may be left – if anything at all.

      • eddie47d

        Iran has nothing to do with this decision to decrease the numbers of nukes we have Ellen. This is something else that has been plotted out for years as was the last nuke treaty with Russia. I doubt if it will happen unless other countries control how many they have. We still have 5,113 nukes and Iran has none. Apparently we have a right to defend ourselves but Iran doesn’t? Iran can be a pest in the Middle East but we are a bigger pest in our entanglements. Who should the can of Raid be used on?

      • ToeTagTunny

        So, have you thought exactly what we’re going to do with that 80% surplus? We have to do something with the weapons we have already created.. Put them in a hole? Re-condition them into children’s swings and door stops for nostalgic collectors? Sell them to undeveloped Countries after we pay for aid so they might afford them? Shoot them toward the Sun or burn them like confiscated pot? Pass them out to our enemies? What? You can’t ‘just’ downsize without disposing of the surplus and you can’t ‘just’ bury nuclear weapons by storing them inside a mountain to rot.. These and other questions, right after the aftermath of WWlll.. And if you think I’m joking then your really a bunch of sheeple.

      • http://naver samurai

        OK ed-duh, tell us if the Russians and Chinese are lowering the number of nukes they possess. China has created and expanded on their East Wind weapons program and I don’t forsee it coming to an end anytime soon. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • eddie47d

        My reply to that question Samurai is down below. Now have a nice day and the name is Eddie. Thanks.

blog comments powered by Disqus

All Categories

Bottom