- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Messages
- 52,046
- Reaction score
- 34,013
- Location
- The Golden State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and now, Obama all envisioned a world free of nuclear weapons. The US-Russian START accord, announced Friday, is a next step in that direction, experts say.
Reagan's stance seemed to be one of deterrence rather than submission.
Reagan's stance seemed to be one of deterrence rather than submission.
Why do you believe he's submitting to other nations just because he's essentially doing the same thing both former presidents did: draw down the nuclear stockpiles of two world superpowers as an example for the rest of the world to follow?
Why was it okay when Kennedy and especially when Reagon did it, but not okay when Pres. Obama does it?
Why do you believe he's submitting to other nations just because he's essentially doing the same thing both former presidents did: draw down the nuclear stockpiles of two world superpowers as an example for the rest of the world to follow?
Why was it okay when Kennedy and especially when Reagon did it, but not okay when Pres. Obama does it?
Because Reagan had the will to back up what he believed with action. He was a man who was unafraid of conflict and the ugly realities that go along with it.
“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?”
Ronald Reagan regarded nuclear weapons, according to Nancy, as “totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.”
- - Barack Obama (Prague)In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.
I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.) I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly -- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, "Yes, we can."
1. Preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism;
2. Reducing the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy;
3. Maintaining strategic deterrence and stability at reduced nuclear force levels;
4. Strengthening regional deterrence and reassuring U.S. allies and partners; and
5. Sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal.
you can read the entire report here -> http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report.pdf
geo.
Yes, I understand the comparison and contrasts. The world is a different place now than it was 30 years ago. The time for getting rid of nukes and wishing for practicality and goodwill are past. If we don't have the will to ensure that nations like Iran and N Korea will not have nuclear weapons, then it would be futile for us to disarm. As much as many would like to think the world is a nice place and that God favors the righteous, it's not true. I'm all for a peaceful world and a lack of weapons that can destroy large portions of humanity and the earth, but we should keep in mind that some nations live with the belief that force is the only legitimate form of power. If we, as a nation, want to take the risk, I can live with it. I don't think it's smart to do so.
Yes, but you guys seem to think that Iran and N. Korea represent a bigger threat than the Soviet Union ever did. Sorry, I just don't see it! Not coming from one country that just barely got their nuclear weapons program off the ground but doesn't have the launch platform capable of reaching our shores, while the other hasn't even produced a single nukes beyond the test phase.
I'm not saying destroy all of our nukes while other nations still have them. That's certainly not what this nation is doing. If anything, we and our nuclear power ally (if you can call Russia an ally) are just scaling back production and possibly placement of our nukes on foreign soil.
I don't think they pose a larger threat, merely a less predictable one.
As for Russia, it's hard to say if they are our ally. Maybe they are, but they also (imo) are more inclined to sell Nukes to nations like Iran and N Korea given enough incentive financially. We shall see.
That's ludicrous. Russia wouldn't risk the international fallout if they did.
Because Reagan had the will to back up what he believed with action. He was a man who was unafraid of conflict and the ugly realities that go along with it.
Did you know that the Cold War was not really a war.
So what did we win?
Don't ruin their moment with reality, they won't believe or understand you.
Oh no!!! Your country now only has the ability to nuke the world 5 times over and not 6!!! What a coward Obama is.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling! What will we ever do?
:roll:
Because Reagan had the will to back up what he believed with action. He was a man who was unafraid of conflict and the ugly realities that go along with it.
I don't think they pose a larger threat, merely a less predictable one.
As for Russia, it's hard to say if they are our ally. Maybe they are, but they also (imo) are more inclined to sell Nukes to nations like Iran and N Korea given enough incentive financially. We shall see.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?