http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=..._article=1

Quote:WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama warned Wednesday about the danger of "fighting the last war" as he pledged to focus on emerging nuclear, biological and cyber threats if elected president.
Two goals of his administration would be to secure all loose nuclear material during his first term and to rid the world of nuclear weapons, Obama told an audience before a roundtable discussion at Purdue University.

Obama said adhering to nonproliferation treaties would put pressure on nations such as North Korea and Iran. North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon and Iran has an energy program the Bush administration warns could be a precursor to nuclear weapon development.

"As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy," Obama said.

I realize that he's put his little caveat in there, and some left wingers will say "what is wrong with having that as a goal"... and the answer is Nothing, unless you live in the real world... in which case this is the same argument that is made about guns. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. This has been the basic goal of the UN for 50 years... how's it working so far??

We can't get China to clean up their own air and water, but Obama is going to get them to give up their Nuclear weapons??? and THEY will be MUCH easier to convince than Israel, Pakistan etc... not to mention Iran and Korea who would only be encouraged by the prospect of being "the most powerful country in the world". Apparently We, Russia, China and Britan are just going to "eat" trillions of dollars in hardware... not just the missles, but the subs... the sosus net... launch detection apparatus and anti-missle missles.... and I'm sure that Obama has a foolproof plan for the nuclear material. Russia considers our having the ability to shoot down nuclear weapons in mid-air a first strike threat to their nuclear weapons... which they'd have to fire first for our missles to be effective...

Pander Pander Pander... Lie Lie Lie....

I'm sorry, but this just pushed me over the edge with this fraud.

Not only will he rid the world of Nuclear weapons and win the hearts and minds of the Russian leaders and people in doing so, he'll bring lasting peace to the middle east, end global warming in his first year in office and make all people in the US equally rich we'll all be millionaires won't it be GREAT!!!

Why doesn't he just cure cancer while he's at it.

Are you guys questioning the Messiah? That's blasphemy.

Quote:In his speech in Denver, McCain, like his Democratic competitors, called for a world free of nuclear weapons, and cited as his model President Ronald Reagan.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/28/a...inbush.php

Oh no! McCain agrees with Obama. And St. Reagan did too.

I'm not worried about the Russian (Soviet) SS-24's/25/27's (Topol)... given the numerous reliability factors.

The US ABM's in Alaska/Vandenberg ought to be enough (not to mention the Aegis ships offshore from US cities) to keep the Russians (Soviets) in check.

I AM worried about some nut/rogue state/terrorist with a nuke...

Some "group" pops a nuke/atomic weapon.. wherever... and all hell will break loose.

As far as the design for a nuke or atomic weapons, I seem to recall that in the 1970's some junior level Physics students at Rice came up with a "functional design" for an atomic weapon...

And if you have the fissile material... look out... it isn't "rocket science" since AQ Khan has sold the knowledge all over the place..

The truth of the matter is that nuclear weapons kept the peace (on a global scale) for the past 63 years.....

Once the knowledge is out of the bottle... it isnt going back in...

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:...words.... and make all people in the US equally rich we'll all be millionaires won't it be GREAT!!!

Eh, Then all of our taxes will be increased!

WMD Owl Wrote:I AM worried about some nut/rogue state/terrorist with a nuke...

I understand how MAD kept the Soviet Union sort of in check, but I can't see it applying against nuts and/or terroists, and only marginally so against rouge states. Do you believe that our stockpile of nuclear weapons is an effective deterrent against these types of threats?

jh Wrote:I understand how MAD kept the Soviet Union sort of in check, but I can't see it applying against nuts and/or terroists, and only marginally so against rouge states. Do you believe that our stockpile of nuclear weapons is an effective deterrent against these types of threats?

No, but wiretapping, waterboarding, and interrogation is.

jh Wrote:I understand how MAD kept the Soviet Union sort of in check, but I can't see it applying against nuts and/or terroists, and only marginally so against rouge states. Do you believe that our stockpile of nuclear weapons is an effective deterrent against these types of threats?

...which I think you're against. Tell me jh, I don't know where your family lives, but say you caught a person who had actual knowledge of a loose suitcase nuke in the city that your family inhabits. To what extend would you go to obtain that information? You should already KNOW my answer, but I'm just asking you.

Rebel Wrote:

jh Wrote:I understand how MAD kept the Soviet Union sort of in check, but I can't see it applying against nuts and/or terroists, and only marginally so against rouge states. Do you believe that our stockpile of nuclear weapons is an effective deterrent against these types of threats?

No, but wiretapping, waterboarding, and interrogation is.

So are you agreeing with Obama, McCain, and Reagan that the world would be a better place if all of the nation-states destroyed their stockpiles of nuclear weapons?

jh Wrote:So are you agreeing with Obama, McCain, and Reagan that the world would be a better place if all of the nation-states destroyed their stockpiles of nuclear weapons?

No. The Atomic bomb saved hundreds of thousands of lives during World War Two. Sorry JH, I don't live in dreamland. It will NEVER happen. We have to keep the upper hand on our enemies AT ALL TIMES. You guys thinking everyone in the world thinks like those liberal ******* in San Francisco is dangerous, to say the least. We have a religion on this planet that wants everyone converted, subjected and taxed, or beheaded. Oh, "not all Muslims, Rebel", well, I don't see THOSE fools standing up, do you? I've seen the threat. Maybe if you've spent some time in my Corcorans, you'd understand.

By the way, you never answered my question. What would you do? What would be acceptable if YOUR family was at risk? You know, the President of the United States is Constitutionally-charged with this mission. For ALL Americans.

Rebel Wrote:

jh Wrote:I understand how MAD kept the Soviet Union sort of in check, but I can't see it applying against nuts and/or terroists, and only marginally so against rouge states. Do you believe that our stockpile of nuclear weapons is an effective deterrent against these types of threats?

...which I think you're against. Tell me jh, I don't know where your family lives, but say you caught a person who had actual knowledge of a loose suitcase nuke in the city that your family inhabits. To what extend would you go to obtain that information? You should already KNOW my answer, but I'm just asking you.

Actually I'm only against illegal wiretapping and torture. I have no problem with wiretapping & interrogation carried out in accordance with the law & with respect for individual rights & human dignity.

I don't know how far I would go in your scenario. I'm pretty sure I would go further than I had the legal right to do. I don't claim to be perfect & am just as capable of rationalizing my actions as anyone else. The problem is I would go just as far if I only thought the person had actual knowledge, when in fact he did not.

I would ALSO probably murder an innocent person to spare a million lives. That doesn't make it right. It just means that I am weak.

* Edited to add also to the last line since it seemed to be causing some confusion.

jh Wrote:I would probably murder an innocent person to spare a million lives. That doesn't make it right. It just means that I am weak.

In the military that would be called strong. It's an easy yet torturous decision if you can disconnect yourself and just compare which is the worse of two evils - which is what good leaders do. The hard part, and I'm with you on this, is actually pulling the trigger. I'm sure you'd believe that officers have knowingly sent people to their deaths in order to save others. I don't have that kind of grit which is why I'm not president or a 5 star general.

jh Wrote:I would probably murder an innocent person to spare a million lives. That doesn't make it right. It just means that I am weak.

That's the difference between you and me. I wouldn't call you weak. I'd call you human and compassionate. You care more about a million lives than you do one.....who, BTW, is NEVER some innocent bystander just standing on the street.

Rebel Wrote:

jh Wrote:So are you agreeing with Obama, McCain, and Reagan that the world would be a better place if all of the nation-states destroyed their stockpiles of nuclear weapons?

No. The Atomic bomb saved hundreds of thousands of lives during World War Two. Sorry JH, I don't live in dreamland. It will NEVER happen. We have to keep the upper hand on our enemies AT ALL TIMES. You guys thinking everyone in the world thinks like those liberal ******* in San Francisco is dangerous, to say the least. We have a religion on this planet that wants everyone converted, subjected and taxed, or beheaded. Oh, "not all Muslims, Rebel", well, I don't see THOSE fools standing up, do you? I've seen the threat. Maybe if you've spent some time in my Corcorans, you'd understand.

First, I've not advocated total nuclear disarmament. I've merely pointed out that McCain & Reagan share the same view that Obama is being criticized for and asked a question about how effective a deterrent our nuclear stockpile is against nuts, terrorists, & rouge states.

I agree that dropping the bomb on Japan likely saved many lives, Japanese as well as American. But that was a unique situation. We were the only country with the bomb and could use it without fear of retaliation. That's not the case anymore and some of our most persistent threats are among those least deterred by our weapons. It's very possible that the MAD doctrine will remain important since Russia seems to be backsliding & China isn't exactly friendly, but it's at least worth having the discussion.

jh Wrote:We were the only country with the bomb and could use it without fear of retaliation.

You know how close we were during WWII to this not being a fact?

Hambone10 Wrote:Why doesn't he just cure cancer while he's at it.

Next stop........Jetpacks!!!!!!

Rebel Wrote:

jh Wrote:I would probably murder an innocent person to spare a million lives. That doesn't make it right. It just means that I am weak.

That's the difference between you and me. I wouldn't call you weak. I'd call you human and compassionate. You care more about a million lives than you do one.....who, BTW, is NEVER some innocent bystander just standing on the street.

I wasn't talking about it in the sense of your terrorist example. This is a relatively common philosophical exercise where the person to be murdered is in fact defined as an innocent bystander. Is it ever morally justified to violate the Kantian imperative, to treat a human as a means instead of an end in and of himself? If it is, where do you draw the line? It seems obvious when the numbers are one to a million, but is it ok to murder 49 to save 51?

Soldiers are in a slightly different moral category than ordinary people and their leaders are under different obligations. They are to be admired for their courage, their service, and their devotion but by volunteering (I'm sure you will all be shocked to find out that I am opposed to conscription) they have essentially chosen to become the means by which a higher purpose is achieved. As they have chosen this path, however, using them in this way is still consistent with treating them as an end, even if it doesn't always seem like it at the time.