If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Breitbart.com)   State Dept. considers eliminating US nuclear arsenal, USDA considers supplying US canine nutrition   (breitbart.com) divider line 75
    More: Stupid, State Department, President Obama, nuclear weapons, Democrat Party, nutrition, rogue states  
•       •       •

968 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Aug 2012 at 12:42 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-24 09:05:26 AM
Yeah, right. I'll believe it when I see it. And I'd rather not see it, despite me being the pacifist that I am. Keeping a few nukes around for MAD is necessary, in my opinion.

FTA: In other words, as long as nations like the U.S., Israel, and Russia have nukes but rogue nations like Iran and North Korea don't, Iran and North Korea will continually pursue them with a willingness to use them. Yet if we get rid of ours, they will stop the pursuit of theirs... and everybody can hug and get along, naturally.

Heh, there are many reasons why these nations seek nuclear arms. I imagine one big one is that once a country does have nukes, the U.S. then decides to leave them the fark alone.
 
2012-08-24 09:05:54 AM
I've considered it too. Conclusion: as long as evil people who dislike us have them, we should have them.
 
2012-08-24 09:09:52 AM
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
 
2012-08-24 09:09:55 AM
Humans distrust each other naturally. It is a survival instinct passed on from our ancestors. We have yet to evolve beyond the survival mindset. If we could, then I bet you every nation would get rid of them.
 
2012-08-24 09:11:49 AM
img0.fark.netimg1.fark.net
 
2012-08-24 09:21:02 AM
Although President Obama's current defense cuts are so drastic

Is he talking about sequestration?
 
2012-08-24 09:21:24 AM

cman: We have yet to evolve beyond the survival mindset.


WTF does that even mean? Survival is like our Prime Directive.
 
2012-08-24 09:22:51 AM

cman: Humans distrust each other naturally. It is a survival instinct passed on from our ancestors. We have yet to evolve beyond the survival mindset. If we could, then I bet you every nation would get rid of them.


I would suggest that once we move beyond the survival mindset, we will have lost our capability to survive.
 
2012-08-24 09:23:42 AM
There are few people on earth I am glad are dead. Breitbart is one of them.
 
2012-08-24 09:25:48 AM
I don't have a problem with keeping a powerful nuclear arsenal, but we really don't need as many as we have.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-08-24 09:26:36 AM
This is stupid even by Brietbart standards. The State Department controls the DoD now?
 
2012-08-24 09:28:38 AM
What was the point of that piece?

Headline: "The US is getting rid of its nukes!"
Article: "No they're not, but they'd like to."

Whatever generates page views, I guess.
 
2012-08-24 09:33:30 AM
Interesting. Two links away - ISAB Report :

"This is a report of the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB), a Federal Advisory Committee established to provide the Department of State with a continuing source of independent insight, advice and innovation on scientific, military, diplomatic, political, and public diplomacy aspects of arms control, disarmament, international security, and nonproliferation. The views expressed herein do not represent official positions or policies of the Department of State or any other entity of the United States Government. "

And if you read the report, hell, just the introduction, you would know this is not being suggested. The report is a exploration of mutual national stability resulting in one of two possible end states- 1) the threat of war is pretty much eliminated through national transparency and cooperation and 2) a world with drastically reduced and "ultimately eliminated" nuclear weapons.

TFA rips a tiny quote from the *description* #2. Again, this small portion of a paragraph only only explaining the scenario(s) under which the report was written. It also makes it clear that such stability between nations is highly unlikely, can drastically change as a result of any number of factors, and probably couldn't be achieved in our lifetime.
 
2012-08-24 09:44:22 AM
Freeper Friday is in full effect, I guess.


Aarontology: I don't have a problem with keeping a powerful nuclear arsenal, but we really don't need as many as we have.


Blowing the world up twice over is enough for me.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-08-24 09:48:03 AM
Nuclear disarmament has been the official policy of the US since 1970 anyway, so trying to blame Obama is stupid.
 
2012-08-24 09:51:15 AM

SilentStrider: Blowing the world up twice over is enough for me.


Yeah, I'd like to at least leave the possibility if something intelligent evolving after we reduce the world to cinders.
 
2012-08-24 10:20:23 AM
Under the Treaty of on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (PDF), signed and ratified by the United States, Article VI says:

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

Do I think it will happen? It's doubtful. But it's been ratified, so the policy goal of nuclear disarmament is the law of the land.
 
2012-08-24 10:47:54 AM
It must be awful to live in such fear and anger all the time. These people seem to be afraid of nearly everything and angry at nearly everything at the same time. Seems tiring.
 
2012-08-24 11:57:24 AM
I made the mistake of clicking a Breitbart reference link. It was self referential so Breitbart's main source for it's article was itself.
 
2012-08-24 12:01:56 PM
A State Dept. report addressing this issue justifies the suggestion on the grounds that possessing nuclear weapons drives other nations to "acquisition and/or use of nuclear weapons."

The US didn't build the first nuclear bombs out of a desire to blow up Japanese but because we were afraid that the Nazi's were developing their own.
Then the Soviets built their bombs because they didn't want the Americans to be the only ones armed with atomic weapons.
China developed it's own nuclear program because the Russians had theirs.
Then all three spent a few decades building bigger and better bombs because they didn't want to fall behind. England and France came along for the ride as part of NATO.

Pakistan started building nuclear weapons after India tested their own. Now they're trading underground test fires like two idiots shoving each other in a school parking lot.
And Iran and Iraq both embarked on attempts to acquire WMD's because they thought the other nation had them.
North Korea made theirs after being told by the US that the armistice didn't prohibit nuclear weapons being deployed on the Korean Peninsula.

Israel most likely has nuclear weapons, but would have constructed them out of a fear of overwhelming odds in a conventional conflict.

So out of the list of nuclear powers: USA, Russia, England, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and presumably Israel and two wannabes in the Middle East- all but exactly one started their nuclear weapons programs because they were scared of somebody else's atomic weapons. So yeah, it's a safe bet that the main force driving a nation to acquire WMD's is the fear of some other nation having them.
 
2012-08-24 12:05:42 PM
Or in an analogy, no one is going to spend billions of dollar to maybe be able to defend their house with a machine gun if they're only worried about a home intruder armed with a baseball bat.
 
2012-08-24 12:46:52 PM
www.ambrosiasw.com

Fun game. No one plays it.
 
2012-08-24 12:48:12 PM
State Dept. Acknowledges reality. Conservatives inconsolable.
 
2012-08-24 12:48:43 PM
Thank you, Brietbart's Ghost, for proving the point I made just a few threads down: It's not just misappropriating politicians and greedy Lt. Colonels who are responsible for our insane and overpadded defense budget, it's the American public who hears "let's not buy quite so much ammo this year" as "We're unilaterally disarming our entire armed services and throwing the gates open to the barbarians."
 
2012-08-24 12:48:52 PM
What kind of libby lib-lib hippie would try nuclear disarmament?

www.thereaganvision.org



/but weapons for Islamic fundamentalists? Sure!!
 
2012-08-24 12:49:22 PM
The only reason to do this is because we no longer need it. We no longer need it because of the eathquake/deathray machines we have built with HAARP et al.
 
2012-08-24 12:50:35 PM
Oh. Look. A Breitbart article. Let's pretend anything factual has ever been printed on any part of that site.
 
2012-08-24 12:51:20 PM

kudayta: [DEFCON 1]

Fun game. No one plays it.


It's because the only winning move is not to play.
 
2012-08-24 12:51:31 PM

dittybopper: cman: Humans distrust each other naturally. It is a survival instinct passed on from our ancestors. We have yet to evolve beyond the survival mindset. If we could, then I bet you every nation would get rid of them.

I would suggest that once we move beyond the survival mindset, we will have lost our capability to survive.


It could be argued that we have already done this and are actively making the world uninhabitable through the pursuit of capitalistic goals.

/adjusts tie-dyed Howie Hawkins t-shirt
 
2012-08-24 12:51:37 PM
In other news, Breitbart seems to think that the State Department has complete control over the nuclear arsenal.
 
2012-08-24 12:52:50 PM
Sigh, not even remotely possible, let alone likely.
 
2012-08-24 12:53:33 PM

cman: Humans distrust each other naturally. It is a survival instinct passed on from our ancestors. We have yet to evolve beyond the survival mindset. If we could, then I bet you every nation would get rid of them.


If we evolve beyond our lack of wings, we'll be able to fly!
 
2012-08-24 12:54:26 PM
I'm a far-left liberal pacifist, and I truly believe that the United States should keep a reasonable deterrant nuclear force.

(Also I get pissed with the people who say "the USA has nukes, it's hypocritical to say Iran can't!" That's not true. The United States is, for the most part, a rational actor. Iran is not.
 
2012-08-24 12:54:53 PM
Here is the report.

And here is the first paragraph from the report.

This is a report of the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB), a Federal Advisory Committee established to provide the Department of State with a continuing source of independent insight, advice and innovation on scientific, military, diplomatic, political, and public diplomacy aspects of arms control, disarmament, international security, and nonproliferation. The views expressed herein do not represent official positions or policies of the Department of State or any other entity of the United States Government.

When will the Right stop being a bunch of dishonest asses?
 
2012-08-24 12:55:27 PM
 
2012-08-24 12:55:58 PM

ongbok: Here is the report.

And here is the first paragraph from the report.

This is a report of the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB), a Federal Advisory Committee established to provide the Department of State with a continuing source of independent insight, advice and innovation on scientific, military, diplomatic, political, and public diplomacy aspects of arms control, disarmament, international security, and nonproliferation. The views expressed herein do not represent official positions or policies of the Department of State or any other entity of the United States Government.

When will the Right stop being a bunch of dishonest asses?


Never. Ever.
 
2012-08-24 12:58:40 PM

edmo: I've considered it too. Conclusion: as long as evil people who dislike us have them, we should have them.


The call evil is coming from INSIDE THE HOUSE COUNTRY!
 
2012-08-24 01:01:20 PM
Your website sucks and its founder is dead.
 
2012-08-24 01:02:19 PM

SilentStrider:
Blowing the world up twice over is enough for me.


Link
 
2012-08-24 01:02:34 PM

edmo: Conclusion: as long as evil people who dislike us have them, we should have them.


Oddly, this is identical to the reason countries like Iran seek to develop nuclear weapons programs in the first place.
 
2012-08-24 01:02:55 PM

Lord Dimwit: I'm a far-left liberal pacifist, and I truly believe that the United States should keep a reasonable deterrant nuclear force.

(Also I get pissed with the people who say "the USA has nukes, it's hypocritical to say Iran can't!" That's not true. The United States is, for the most part, a rational actor. Iran is not.


The question is, what constitutes a "reasonable" deterrent? We have several thousand now (way, way down from 30 years ago) and plan on further reductions. Honestly, I don't know the number, but I suspect our goal of 1,500 or so is still far more than we require to keep Iran honest.

/Over the last few Presidential administrations, there has been a rather heroic bi-partisan effort to reduce our nukes to a less insane number. Props to both right and left for making our world a bit less dangerous
 
2012-08-24 01:04:03 PM
cdn.smosh.com
 
2012-08-24 01:07:02 PM
Although President Obama's current defense cuts are so drastic

What defense cuts? Am I missing something?
 
2012-08-24 01:08:01 PM
Anyone who believes the US would dispose of all of our nuclear weapons also believes we don't have any germ or chemical warfare capabilities at our disposal
 
2012-08-24 01:09:05 PM
Romney knows the seriousness of the Soviet threat. Obama bows to them.

Vote Republican.
 
2012-08-24 01:09:32 PM

Lord Dimwit: I'm a far-left liberal pacifist, and I truly believe that the United States should keep a reasonable deterrant nuclear force.

(Also I get pissed with the people who say "the USA has nukes, it's hypocritical to say Iran can't!" That's not true. The United States is, for the most part, a rational actor. Iran is not.


Actually, we are pretty much a rogue state. We fund all kinds of terror, and attack nations without provocation, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Nations like Iran want nukes to protect themselves form nations like us, or russia.
 
2012-08-24 01:09:48 PM

farkityfarker: Although President Obama's current defense cuts are so drastic

What defense cuts? Am I missing something?


It's almost as if he HAS been trying to cut the budget, but nobody knows.
 
2012-08-24 01:17:20 PM

edmo: I've considered it too. Conclusion: as long as evil people who dislike us have them, we should have them.


I would imagine that this is the same argument that countries like Iran want them.

I'd rather they not own any, but seeing as we're not the World police, who are we to tell them they can't?
 
2012-08-24 01:32:45 PM

Antimatter: Lord Dimwit: I'm a far-left liberal pacifist, and I truly believe that the United States should keep a reasonable deterrant nuclear force.

(Also I get pissed with the people who say "the USA has nukes, it's hypocritical to say Iran can't!" That's not true. The United States is, for the most part, a rational actor. Iran is not.

Actually, we are pretty much a rogue state. We fund all kinds of terror, and attack nations without provocation, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Nations like Iran want nukes to protect themselves form nations like us, or russia.


All they have to do is look to the East and then to the West and be a bit concerned. We'd be worried if China invaded and took over Canada, then invaded and took over Mexico.

Unoriginal_Username:
I'd rather they not own any, but seeing as we're not the World police, who are we to tell them they can't?

The Non-Proliferation treaty gives us that right, along with other parties. Note that the Treaty does give Iran the right to develop nuclear energy, but in return they've agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. There's evidence they have not lived up to the latter, but for the rather rational reasons given above.

/that said, no one wants Iran to have nukes - not good for anyone, including Iran
 
2012-08-24 01:33:49 PM
If I were President, I would seriously think about getting rid of nuclear weapons.

Well, at least if I had something better in my arsenal, like antimatter missiles or quantum disrupters.

/Foreign countries should start getting frightened the moment a U.S. President seriously proposes getting rid of nukes.
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report