Yeah it makes so much sense to be bally hooing about the peaceful intent
 

every country should follow....especially with the likes of Almadinanutjob in Iran + N. Korea + and this last week Chavez throwing his hat in the ring. Might makes right and we are losing/giving it away.

Obama is taking the US back to being a paper tiger. Let's all hope and pray we don't have to witness his decision making in the event of another 911 type attack on our beloved America. GOD forbid it from happening.

When it comes to military might, there is little room for political, jabber jaw nice-nice.

btk

It was true on March 8, 1983, when President Ronald Reagan said it; and put in perspective to current events, it's still true, IMHO.

"And this brings me to my final point today. During my first press conference as President, in answer to a direct question, I pointed out that, as good Marxist-Leninists, the Soviet leaders have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further their cause, which is world revolution. I think I should point out I was only quoting Lenin, their guiding spirit, who said in 1920 that they repudiate all morality that proceeds from supernatural ideas -- that's their name for religion -- or ideas that are outside class conceptions. Morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of class war. And everything is moral that is necessary for the annihilation of the old, exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.

"Well, I think the refusal of many influential people to accept this elementary fact of Soviet doctrine illustrates an historical reluctance to see totalitarian powers for what they are. We saw this phenomenon in the 1930's. We see it too often today.This doesn't mean we should isolate ourselves and refuse to seek an understanding with them. I intend to do everything I can to persuade them of our peaceful intent, to remind them that it was the West that refused to use its nuclear monopoly in the forties and fifties for territorial gain and which now proposes 50-percent cut in strategic ballistic missiles and the elimination of an entire class of land-based, intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

"At the same time, however, they must be made to understand we will never compromise our principles and standards. We will never give away our freedom. We will never abandon our belief in God. And we will never stop searching for a genuine peace. But we can assure none of these things America stands for through the so-called nuclear freeze solutions proposed by some.

"The truth is that a freeze now would be a very dangerous fraud, for that is merely the illusion of peace. The reality is that we must find peace through strength.

"I would agree to a freeze if only we could freeze the Soviets' global desires. A freeze at current levels of weapons would remove any incentive for the Soviets to negotiate seriously in Geneva and virtually end our chances to achieve the major arms reductions which we have proposed. Instead, they would achieve their objectives through the freeze.

"A freeze would reward the Soviet Union for its enormous and unparalleled military buildup. It would prevent the essential and long overdue modernization of United States and allied defenses and would leave our aging forces increasingly vulnerable. And an honest freeze would require extensive prior negotiations on the systems and numbers to be limited and on the measures to ensure effective verification and compliance. And the kind of a freeze that has been suggested would be virtually impossible to verify. Such a major effort would divert us completely from our current negotiations on achieving substantial reductions."

http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganEvilEmpire1983.html

Our guns
 

Today Obama wants to take away our Atomic Bombs Tomorrow it will be our guns.

Head in the sand
 

Using terms like "Global Order"and "Global Consensus" as if they were possible to achieve is not only naive but beyond sensible.

Will communists, dictators, socialists, or religious nuts who want to destroy us in the name of their Religion, reach an order or consensus with us?

If you think so you have your head in the sand and lets hope you never become the Diplomat who will sell us out to them.

Article Is Kind Of Dated, Isn't It?
 

Isn't this a week-old article that was published before we got the Russians to agree to the same limitations? Three days after this article was published President Obama and Russian President Medvedev signed an arms reduction pact that would cut the world's largest nuclear arsenals by two-thirds.

It seems to me that to get the only two countries with significant nuclear arms arsenals to agree to reducing the number of warheads each would have to an equal number, about two-thirds less than exist now, is a pretty significant accomplishment.

The United States and Russia have 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons, a legacy of the Cold War. President Obama and Russian President Medvedev also had discussions regarding Iran's stated intent to arm itself with nuclear weapons. Noting that Iran hasn't responded to different proposals, Medvedev said, "We cannot turn a blind eye to this."

On the other hand, if one believes that our foreign policy would be best based on threatening other countries with our ability to instantaneously turn them to ashes, then maybe it's not so good an idea.

There's still a chance that our politicians can overturn this treaty. It has to be ratified by the Senate. It'll be interesting to see which Senators stand up against the treaty. More interesting will be their reasons why.

Let me make a prediction: all the Republican Senators will vote NOT to ratify the treaty. But we'll all struggle trying to understand why...other than to do so would embarrass President Obama.

Confused
 

I'm lost here. President Reagan was against a freeze in the size of the respective nuclear arsenals because Russia's was so large at the time. He argued in this speech that to freeze at asuch a high level would be to Russia's advantage and would not meet our objective of a significant reduction in the size of the nuclear arsenals.

But what was agreed to this week wasn't a freeze. It was an agreed upon significant reduction in nuclear arsenals of both countries so that both would have the same number of nuclear weapons of the same types. Pretty much both countries guns would be filled with the same number of bullets, many fewer than they had before. That was pretty much what President Reagan was seeking, wasn't it?

the worst part
 

of this nuclear agreement is obama's declaration to the world that we would never use a nuclear retaliation even when faced with chemical and terrorist attacks...this is an unnecessary and dangerous promise which robs us of a powerful deterrent against these attacks and probably has our most dangerous enemies laughing at our stupidity. the same for the enemies of israel.

After the world war to end all world wars, WWI, it took only 20 years for another world war to start.

After the USA ended WWII with new weapon, nuclear, there has been about 65 years without another world war.

And we need a new policy, why?

EDIT: It would be 85 years without a World War if we had a nuclear bomb to end World War I.

Can you imagine the "conventional wars" that would have consumed the last 65 years if the "bomb" was not invented and applied.

Only Half
 

Reading only half the story can be misleading.

From Reuters New Service, April 6 "....The United States for the first time is forswearing use of atomic weapons against non-nuclear countries, a break with a Bush-era threat of nuclear retaliation in the event of a biological or chemical attack.

But this comes with a major condition. Those countries would be spared a U.S. nuclear response only if they are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran and North Korea would thus not be protected."

If we give up one third of our nuclear stockpile we still have enough power to destroy the ENTIRE world 6-7 times. The Russians will have the same capability.Paper tiger,no way. If, God forbid we are nuked it will be by a terrorist group not a country. That's what makes things so difficult. Terrorists have no country. Many of them are enemies in their own country.If we find out that they were from Pakistan do we nuke them? Nuclear weapons are a deterent to countries,they are not to terrorist groups.

As time goes by, more countries will have developed nuclear weapons. World War One was to be the war to end all wars. That only lasted for 20 years. Once many countries have nuclear it will now be considered a conventional weapon. Irresponsible backward countries would not hesitate to use nuclear. Gone are the days when only democratic countries have these terrible weapons.
We cannot afford to allow countries like Iran to develop these weapons. They will make the Cold War seem like a walk in the park. We cannot put our heads in the sand.
We should also remember who our friends are. Israel should not be dissed by this administration anymore.

Bad Guys
 

That's kind of the way I thought about it, as well. Even by cutting our nuclear stockpile by 2/3, we'd still have plenty to nuke the world. When I hear of some Senators resisting the treaty because it doesn't permit further nuclear weapon development and underground testing, I ask "so what?" The Russians are similarly limited and between the two countries we are lightyears ahead of anyone else in weapons development. What would we lose, the right to develop a 250 megaton nuke that could toast an entire continent? Would we ever use that kind of weapon? If no one else thought we would, it's not much of a deterrant.

If terrorists with no country--say Saudis who trained in Afghanistan to come over and explode a dirty nuke in Manhattan--what would we do? Nuke Afghanistan? Nuke Saudi Arabia? Nuke the whole Arab Middle East? Even with two-thirds less nuclear warheads, we'd still have plenty to do that. What are the chances we'd do anything? You know as well as I do...and so do the terrorists.

I think I posted earlier that all this posturing has a whole lot more to do with politics than it does actually reducing the stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. If the treaty fails to be ratified for purely political reasons, that would be a tragedy.

It would leave the entire rest of the developed world to conclude, "...hey, the U.S. isn't willing to reduce it's stockpile of nuclear weapons, why should we listen to them when they want us to stop developing or using nukes?" This treaty seems to have marginalized both Iran and North Korea. If it fails to be ratified by our Senate, it'll be Katy Bar The Door as far as nuclear weapons development is concerned. And while our politicians and foreign policy negotiators will make blustering noises to the contrary, that's all it will be--blustering. The bad guys will continue to try to make nukes, pretty much with impunity based on our own example, and then probably sell them to even "badder" guys.

Very specifically, if our Senate refuses to ratify the treaty between the U.S. and Russia, what are the chances that Iran will be the least bit motivated to slow or stop it's own weapons development program? If the answer is that they will feel they can continue on their course with impunity, ignoring what the U.S. or others in the world demand, what's going to stop them?

Would We Have A Dog In The Fight?
 

I'm certainly not suggesting that Israel is not our strongest ally in the Middle East. I specifically use the term "ally" because there really are no "friends" in the realm of foreign relations. Each country acts in what it believes to be its own best interests and once it becomes clear there is no further purpose in maintaining an allied relationship, even those who had been allies become just another country.

Just for the purpose of discussion, Donna, what would we do if...

• Iran attacked Israel and Israel responded with a nuclear attack on Iran?

• Or what should we do if Israel unilaterally attacked Iran's nuclear development facilities, resulting in a major Middle East ground war between Iran and other Arab nations who might support them in a war against Israel?

What I'm asking is--if Israel gets itself into a major war in it's region of the world, having its own sovereignty threatened, or threatening peace in the entire Middle East because of its actions--does the U.S. have a dog in the fight? Would we or should we deploy troops to help Israel in the resulting war? In either circumstance, would Israel still be a "friend"? Would they be an "ally"?

OMG Do you really think the "bad guys" give two cents on what useless negotiations Russia and the USA participate. These people play by their rules and their ambitions. A country that even denies that the Holocaust happened will deny anything.
One thing they do sense real good is weakness.

Those days have been gone for over 60 years. The USSR exploded it's first atomic bomb on August 29, 1949 - just four years and a few days after the boms were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.