Obama, is this a joke?

So, North Korea is testing nuclear weapons...
How does President Obama respond the day after we become aware of this?

He lowers the ammount of money invested in our missile defense programs...

what the hell were you thinking Obama. Are you trying to get us killed?

Discuss...

You don't think 2,000 nukes will suffice to obliterate N Korea should it come to that??

Our missle defenses were for sophisticated soviet ICBMS.. i think we can deal with their little fire cracker rockets.

It's just an indicator of how Obama views his job. He sees himself as the Robin Hood who's going to right the wrongs of history by ensuring that all entitlements are well-funded. That costs a lot of money. Where's the first place he's gonna cut? You got it. National defense. Hell, why would he fund the defense of a country he believes deserves to be attacked in the first place?

Mcr11170 said:

So, North Korea is testing nuclear weapons...
How does President Obama respond the day after we become aware of this?

He lowers the ammount of money invested in our missile defense programs...

what the hell were you thinking Obama. Are you trying to get us killed?

Discuss...

Click to expand...

I would suggest the US has more than enough serviceable warheads to maintain its present level of security. Where as Russia seem to be someway behind, and possibly will have as little as 500 serviceable warheads by 2020, so in fact they wont be actually reducing their arsenal, unlike the US.

"The Kremlin needs a new deal to replace the Cold War START treaty more than the Americans. With most of its nuclear arsenal already technically defunct, military experts believe that Russia will only be able to maintain 500 deployed warheads by 2020"

US and Russia to cut nuclear arsenals by up to a half - Telegraph

Paul

gunner said:

I would suggest the US has more than enough serviceable warheads to maintain its present level of security. Where as Russia seem to be someway behind, and possibly will have as little as 500 serviceable warheads by 2020, so in fact they wont be actually reducing their arsenal, unlike the US.

"The Kremlin needs a new deal to replace the Cold War START treaty more than the Americans. With most of its nuclear arsenal already technically defunct, military experts believe that Russia will only be able to maintain 500 deployed warheads by 2020"

US and Russia to cut nuclear arsenals by up to a half - Telegraph

Paul

Click to expand...

Do you really believe that Russia is going to do anything but increase their arsenal over the next few years?

marduc said:

You don't think 2,000 nukes will suffice to obliterate N Korea should it come to that??

Our missle defenses were for sophisticated soviet ICBMS.. i think we can deal with their little fire cracker rockets.

Click to expand...

When did this happen? What fully integrated and effective systems have been put into place? What percentage of the US population do they currently protect and what percentage did they protect when they were at their maximum effectiveness?

Answers:

Never.
None.
Zero percent and zero percent.

G.I. Joe said:

It's just an indicator of how Obama views his job. He sees himself as the Robin Hood who's going to right the wrongs of history by ensuring that all entitlements are well-funded. That costs a lot of money. Where's the first place he's gonna cut? You got it. National defense. Hell, why would he fund the defense of a country he believes deserves to be attacked in the first place?

Click to expand...

I view him as a robbin' hood.

G.I. Joe said:

Do you really believe that Russia is going to do anything but increase their arsenal over the next few years?

Click to expand...

Did you not understand the article?

Russia has neither the inclination, nor the finances to maintain its present level. So, how do suggest there about to increase production?

Paul

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

When did this happen? What fully integrated and effective systems have been put into place? What percentage of the US population do they currently protect and what percentage did they protect when they were at their maximum effectiveness?

Answers:

Never.
None.
Zero percent and zero percent.

Click to expand...

yes I am aware that we do not have a nationwide fully implemented "blanket" missile defense system.. we do have missiles capable of intercepting incoming ones though, and we HAVE researched our intercept capabilities with an eye on ICBM's.

You think that just because we never implemented star wars or the like that we are helpless??

Scud Intercept Follows a String of Missile Defense Successes by the United States

The U.S. Army and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency have developed this
theater and tactical system to cover wide geographical areas from ballistic
missile attacks, adding a needed and additional layer of missile defense
between the Patriot terminal defense systems that intercept in the
atmosphere and the mid-course Sea Based Aegis Missile Defense that
intercepts in space.

Click to expand...

Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance | US Systems Deployed

All just a waste of money huh?? absolutely ZERO protection because they are not "fully integrated"?

So far they have protected 100% of the US population since we have yet to be hit by a missile :lol:

G.I. Joe said:

It's just an indicator of how Obama views his job. He sees himself as the Robin Hood who's going to right the wrongs of history by ensuring that all entitlements are well-funded. That costs a lot of money. Where's the first place he's gonna cut? You got it. National defense. Hell, why would he fund the defense of a country he believes deserves to be attacked in the first place?

Click to expand...

I think you're going a wee bit too far with the bolded part. I'm no fan of Obama and I believe he is making one giant mistake after another (just as Bush did for most of his 2nd term), but I doubt he believes that we deserve to be attacked. Yes, he feels this country has made a lot of mistakes over the years, and we have, but to say he thinks we deserve to be attacked is taking things too far.

P/N said:

I think you're going a wee bit too far with the bolded part. I'm no fan of Obama and I believe he is making one giant mistake after another (just as Bush did for most of his 2nd term), but I doubt he believes that we deserve to be attacked. Yes, he feels this country has made a lot of mistakes over the years, and we have, but to say he thinks we deserve to be attacked is taking things too far.

Click to expand...

When you have an apologetic attitude toward people who wish for your total annhilation, what would you call it?

I don't believe he feels we deserve to be attacked right now, but only because we are under his leadership. I think it's pretty obvious that he feels "America's chickens had come home to roost".

How quickly people forget where this man came from and the people he surrounded himself with for decades.

marduc said:

yes I am aware that we do not have a nationwide fully implemented "blanket" missile defense system.. we do have missiles capable of intercepting incoming ones though, and we HAVE researched our intercept capabilities with an eye on ICBM's.

Click to expand...

Okay, it would be easier for you if you just typed:

The United States has no method of protecting any American city from incoming nuclear attack.

marduc said:

You think that just because we never implemented star wars or the like that we are helpless??

Click to expand...

That's exactly what it means.

We have absolutely no way of protecting American citizens from Friends of Socialism anywhere in the world, if those Friends get a bug up their ass and decide to lob a nuclear missile at us.

We've never had a defense.

We have the ability to turn an attacking nation into a glassy self-illuminating parking lot. That doesn't do the Americans killed any good at all.

Your Messiah has cut, and is cutting, funding for future research of ABM systems, making it that much less likely we will be able to defend against attack.

Also, your Messiah would NEVER order a nuclear counterstrike, thereby incapacitating our deterent.