Obama’s unilateral disarmament plan

I saw this story pop up on Drudge last night just before I signed off. Apparently, Obama would like to reduce the United States nuclear weapons stockpile to 300 warheads or less.

The original story came from Associated (With Terrorists) Press.

The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.

In this day and age, this is a dangerously low number and will cripple our ability to deter an attack on the United States.

According to the Washington Free Beacon:

President Obama has ordered the Pentagon to consider cutting U.S. strategic nuclear forces to as low as 300 deployed warheads—below the number believed to be in China’s arsenal and far fewer than current Russian strategic warhead stocks.

If Obama actually goes through with this, it almost guarantees an attack on the United States. Right now, we have sufficient weapons to utterly destroy any major nation that should try and attack us and completely annihilate any smaller country, (Iran), that should do something stupid. One of the reasons for this is that it is almost impossible to pull off a counterforce strike on our missiles. They are on subs and in the middle of nowhere. The Ohio class missile subs carry about 180 warheads each.

A congressional official said no president in the past ever told the Pentagon to conduct a review based on specific numbers of warheads.

“In the past, the way it worked was, ‘tell me what the world is like and then tell me what the force should be,’” the official said. “That is not happening in this review.”

Of course not! Do you honestly think Obama has the best interests of the United States in mind? First he wants to gut the conventional forces and now he wants to eradicate our strategic forces. He and his cronies have already all but shut down our strategic defense system.1

“No sane military leader would condone 300 to 400 warheads for an effective nuclear deterrent strategy,” McInerney told the Washington Free Beacon.

“Going down to 1000 to 1,100 is risky enough and frankly in today’s world, very risky. The purpose of our nuclear force structure is to deter any adversary from even thinking that they could minimize our attack options. Such thinking is very dangerous and will only encourage our adversaries to make bold decisions.

Ya think General? Obama hates the United States. He really doesn’t have a problem seeing it destroyed so long as he survives and is in charge of the remains. If the USSR were still a going concern, there is no doubt that Obama would be facing calls for impeachment and the charges would be treason.

If, for instance, China and/or Russia decided to attack the United States, and launched a counterforce strike, there is a good chance they would succeed and destroy our ability to retaliate.2 If that happened, the next step would be a demand for unconditional surrender and occupation by hostile forces. Think it can’t happen? Think again. China would probably get Hawaii and the west coast, and Russia would take the east. Both sides would split the farm belt and ship all the grain to their countries.

Of course the southern and western states would resist, and considering they have lots of guns and know how to use them, that occupation would be very costly. The left coast and the eastern blue states? They’ve done all they can to strip away people’s right to keep and bear arms and make people dependent on “The State” so it will be a lot easier for an occupying force. And for all those protestors who will be screaming about their rights? You know, the Occupy Space and Waste Oxygen types along with the lazy good for nothing welfare types? Authoritarian governments have a very simple and straightforward way of dealing with protestors. Large amounts of heavy automatic weapons fire.3

There is another matter, and that is our promises to our allies.

A congressional official and former administration official familiar with the ongoing review said the bottom level warhead levels raise serious questions about whether a nuclear force that size would deter adversaries. It also would raise questions about so-called “extended deterrence,” the threat to use nuclear weapons against states like North Korea on behalf of allies like Japan.

Without a true means of deterring an attack, you can almost bet that the North Koreans will invade South Korea, and this time there will be no stopping them. China will probably go after Taiwan and probably Japan. (No love lost between those two nations) Russia under Putin will no doubt move to reimpose the old soviet empire and then some, probably by taking most if not all of western Europe. (It would depend on if they want to deal with the useless morons in those countries)

John Bolton, former U.N. ambassador and undersecretary of state for international security during the George W. Bush administration, said in an interview that the administration’s plan to cut nuclear force to as low as 300 “alone is sufficient to vote against Obama in November.”

“Congress should urgently adopt a resolution rejecting the idea that any of these levels is consistent with American national security,” Bolton said. “Let’s just see who is prepared to support Obama.”

I think you could count on useful idiots like Pelosi and Reid and a few other of the far left. For decades, at least since the 70’s, the “New Wave” democrats who took over the party after McGovern4 won the Presidential Nomination in 1972. There is little doubt that some of the hard core leftists in Congress over the decades actively aided the Soviet Union and it’s allies to the detriment of the United States.

Congress needs to put an end to this right now. They need to tell Obama that if he tries to push this through in his usual manner, (By ignoring things like Congress, the Constitution, etc) that he will be removed from office. They will also need to make sure that our deterrent is effective. I agree with John Bolton. Bring it before Congress and see who supports Obama’s plan to gut our defenses. We also need to remove Obama and all his supporters in Congress next November. If he manages to get a second term, well, personally I think he plans on being the last president of the United States.

Thatisall

~The Angry Webmaster~

[ratings]

 

This is Obama throwing our weapons away in the hopes of looking good to his kook fringe base, and our enemies around the world. The man should be charged with treason. Update – actual numbers have come out. Under the current nuclear …
http://voodoowarrior.blogspot.com/ — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:22:25 -0800
Obama has often cited his desire to seek lower levels of nuclear weapons, but specific options for a further round of cuts had been kept under wraps until the AP learned of the three options now on the table. A spokesman for the White House’s …
http://kipper1969.wordpress.com/ — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 05:49:53 -0800

Is Obama Going To Unilaterally Slash The Size Of The U.S. Nuclear …

Barack Obama wants to disarm America. There simply is no other way to explain his reckless behavior. On Tuesday it came out that the Obama administration is considering plans to unilaterally slash the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal by up …
http://www.wnytruthers.com/ — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 05:23:52 -0800
The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned. Even the most modest option now …
http://thisainthell.us/blog/ — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 05:04:59 -0800

Is Obama Going To Unilaterally Slash The Size Of The U.S. Nuclear …

Reposted from: http://www.infowars.com/insanity-is-barack-obama-going-to-unilaterally-slash-the-size-of-the-u-s-nuclear-arsenal-by-another-80-percent/. February 15, 2012 @ 7:27 am. The American Dream | Barack Obama wants to disarm …
http://truthiscontagious.com/ — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 04:27:56 -0800
  1. The Anti-Ballistic Missile system []
  2. See MAD Doctrine []
  3. Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 []
  4. George S. McGovern []
  • http://twitter.com/angrywebmaster/status/380642223517614080/ angrywebmaster (@angrywebmaster)

    Obama’s unilateral disarmament plan – #angercentralarchives http://t.co/blxo2XGO4h

  • http://twitter.com/angrywebmaster/status/337485339277008896/ angrywebmaster (@angrywebmaster)

    Obama’s unilateral disarmament plan – #angercentralarchives http://t.co/Iz2JnGPOOw

  • http://twitter.com/angrywebmaster/status/248154499494076416/ angrywebmaster (@angrywebmaster)

    New blog post: Obama’s unilateral disarmament plan http://t.co/2WvKkFsw

  • Pingback: A question for our commentors « Musings of the Angry Webmaster()

  • nulife02

    Fools do foolish things – Is it November yet?

    • http://www.angry.net/blog2 Angry Webmaster

       Not yet. First we need to primary out the current crop of fools and install new proto-fools. (That would be people like Orrin Hatch, John Boehner, McConnell, etc)

  • Pingback: nedb()

  • Pingback: angrywebmaster()

XSLT by CarLake
%d bloggers like this: