United States and Russia agree to new nuclear arms reduction agreement

[Mr. Pedantic]

You all do realize that getting rid of the nuclear weapons will probably lead to a WWIII, right? Remember the cold war? Why didn't it actually happen? Because there were nuclear weapons. The moment the US and Russia will have no nuclear weapons, Russia will most likely attack some weak countries, like Georgia and Ukraine, which will eventually lead to a war in Europe. Nuclear weapons may be used in a war (only once on only two cities), but you all just don't realize how many wars it actually saved. Sure, countries like Iran and North Korea should not have any nuclear weapons, but in Western countries, nuclear weapons are actually neccesery. Obama... It is said, 10 geniuses cannot fix the work of one idiot. What Obama does to the world, and especially in the US, is pure damage. I was going to create a topic about the subject, but as you all already know what is my opinion about Hussein Obama, I didn't do it.

Erm...I don't know how much nuclear material you think there is in 3100 nuclear warheads, but by pure strength of numbers, I reckon each nation's stockpile could blow the other to kingdom come. And I'm sure that each side knows this. And so, by virtue of the fact that nobody wants to be blown to kingdom come for no reason, I doubt a WWIII would start just because we decreased the world's nuclear stockpile by about 1500 nukes.

Funny thing is, he doesn't want the whole world to be free of nuclear weapons, he is pretty much ready to accept a nuclear Iran. He does nothing with Iran or North Korea. We the Israelis have already said that we are going to attack Iran, but then Obama came and said that sanctions are the key. The US doesn't care about terrorists, Communists, and Muslims having control of uranium, but it wants to end its own nuclear weapons?! These are very hard times.

Seeing as how Israel's demonstrated how good it is at not listening to the Obama administration anyway, why don't you go ahead?

But why lower the stores at all? The nukes are what stopping the whole world from having another world war, why lower them? The nukes don't do any damage if no one uses them, and no one uses them because no one wants to be nuked himself. That is one problem with Iran: they have very weak weapons, but also nuclear weapons. While other countries can attack with normal weapons, Iran's only way of war is by using nuclear weapons. They know that no one will use nuclear weapons against them, so they don't really have anything to lose. If Iran and North Korea will have more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world, nothing will stop them. That's why I believe that we actually need MORE nuclear weapons, not less. We are currently in a cold war, nations are against other nations, but nations are also having peace with other nations, and the reason why we haven't blown ourselves up yet (and we never will, I hope) is the nuclear weapons. I just don't see any reason of having less nukes.

But by your logic no matter how many nuclear weapons we have, Iran 'knows' that we won't use them against it. So what's the point of having more nuclear weapons if we have to spend all this money on monitoring and security, but never actually using them?

And your second to last sentence doesn't make sense.

Respecting him is refering to him as "The President of the United States of America, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama...". And yes, I call him Hussein, because I want to remind you that the US leader is an Arab Muslim, which means, in other words, anti-Semitic anti-Zionist anti-Israeli pro-Palestinian person. By the way, I above mentioned that the only countries which will help the US in a WWIII are Israel, India and Canada. If Hussein Obama will keep his policy of being a terror-lover, even these three countries will not help the US. After all, he hates Israel, supports Afganistan, and brings only troubles to Canada (without helping it).

*gasp* But then you're disrespecting the POTUS, which means disrespecting the USA! So that must mean according to your logic that you must be the USA's enemies! I see the light!

Also:

1) Barack Obama is not Muslim.
2) Barack Obama is not Arab.
3) I very much doubt Barack Obama is anti-Zionist.
4) I very much doubt Barack Obama is anti-Israeli, seeing as his vice-president visited your country. Of course, his view may have changed when your Prime Minister so crudely insulted Joe Biden.
5) In another world war, likely if America went to war the rest of Nato would go to war with it. That's how it becomes a WORLD war.
6) How is it possible to love terror?
7) Supporting Afghanistan has nothing to do with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, except in possibly the most marginal, irrelevant sense possible. Nor does it have anything to do with reducing the US' nuclear stockpile.
8) I imagine that if the US suddenly disappeared off the face of the Earth, Canada would suffer pretty bad. After all, the US and Canada only form the largest trading partnership in the world. Nothing to worry about, right?

[Octovon]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

8) I imagine that if the US suddenly disappeared off the face of the Earth, Canada would suffer pretty bad. After all, the US and Canada only form the largest trading partnership in the world. Nothing to worry about, right?

Canada would be a third world nation overnight if the US suddenly disappeared.

Originally Posted by Roaming East

What a tool. The US and Russia have been dismantling nukes for fucking decades and the second Obama continues the trend some people act like he's courting Armeggedon. What the hell is happening to the pub these days?

besides, its a gesture. If i point a Glock at your head and agree to remove a bullet from the magazine you gonna feel any safer with the other 17 still there?

Hits the nail right on the head. This is just another agreement in a long series of agreements that have only recently been "delayed" because of some disagreements over missile defence, as well as some bumpy relations between the US and Russia during Bush's two terms.

By destroying thousands of nuclear weapons, both sides can now put the money they would be spending on maintaining those weapons on many thousands more conventional weapons.

[Mr. Matt]

Originally Posted by Alex37

But why lower the stores at all?

Between them, America and Russia have tens of thousands of nuclear warheads, and they're not all limited to the old-fashioned kiloton ranges of the ones used towards the end of WW2. They could quite literally wipe out all life on Earth several times over. They don't even have enough delivery systems to make use of them all.

Why have that many? You only need to wipe out all life on Earth just the once. Any more than that would be quite redundant.

It's a remnant of the cold war and nothing more. Nukes cost money not only to build, but to safely store and maintain them. They could save quite a lot of money if they decommissioned a few thousand of the things, and just save enough for the one mass extinction. It's quite a logical way of saving moolah if you ask me, and you'll still be able to wave around the multi-megaton-phallic-tube-of-death if you need to calm down some upstart renegade country in the future.

[Alex37]

Odds are Obama is an atheist since he was raised by his atheist mother. He only picked up Christianity to make himself appear acceptable to the American people.

This does not help or hurt the safety of the world. Instead of being able to destroy the world 8-10 times over they can only destroy it 5-7 times over. This agreement does not limit the nuclear stockpiles of other nations who are US allies(UK, france)

Obama have learned for two years in a Muslim school. He eclaimed that he haven't, but in his book he wrote that he have.
Also, for now, these are not all of the nuclear rockets, but Obama said that he want the whole world (the Western world, he doesn't care about Iran) to be "free of nukes".

Oh, so now you're a racist who judges someone based on their heritage?

The Islamic ideology is to conquer the world, and him being an Arab might explain his love towards Arab countries. Muslim fanatic fundamental extrimist Arab countries.

Hahahahaha, using this logic the USA is the evil butcher dictator of the world because they overthrew two countries and continue to occupy them because of 9/11 and suck Saudi Arabia's dick for oil, not to mention the CIA is responsible for overthrowing small country governments which don't like the west and replace them with Pro-West dictators. At least in Georgia the Russians attacked as a defensive movement after they were attacked by Georgia, so to call Russia not a democracy just because they "scare small countries" and "care more about oil then the US" is totally ignoring the fact that Russia doesn't do nearly as much shit as the US.

I don't mind the US "occupying" terrorist countries. After all, 9/11 is the terrorists' fault, so now they see the consequences. And Western countries do "replace" leaders of other countries, especially in Africa. I simply don't care about what the West does to evil countries. Now, whoever started the war between Russia and Georgia, did to because of greed. These wars have no meaning in my eyes, because both the US and Russia have nuclear weapons, and I know that they won't attack each other. When both the US and Russia have nuclear weapons, they allow themselves to do whatever they want to countries which don't have nukes. If Russia and the US won't have nukes, they might attack each other.

You do realize the US's and Russia's number of nuclear weapons though? They both have about 20,000, Israel China and France all combined have about 600, you don't need that many as it shows, hell North Korea has approximately 15 Nuclear weapons, and that poses a threat still, so it will be a loooooooong time until Russia and the US get rid of their weapons....

But why get rid of the nuclear weapons at all? I call US' and Russia's nukes "peace weapons". Why? Because both countries have other strong weapons, and both could pressure each other to use the nukes. Therefore, no one uses them. Iran's and North Korea's nukes I call "war weapons". Why? Because both countries will a) won't be nuked if they attack, and b) they don't have any strong armies, so their only way of war is by nuclear weapons. My country Israel could have used nuclear weapons, and we actually thought about it. But why haven't we done that? Because our normal armies are strong enough to win the wars, without using the nukes. And the enemies are scared of our nuclear weapons.

Erm...I don't know how much nuclear material you think there is in 3100 nuclear warheads, but by pure strength of numbers, I reckon each nation's stockpile could blow the other to kingdom come. And I'm sure that each side knows this. And so, by virtue of the fact that nobody wants to be blown to kingdom come for no reason, I doubt a WWIII would start just because we decreased the world's nuclear stockpile by about 1500 nukes.

The plan is to decrease the world's nuclear weapons to zero. Obama and the US do what they do slowly, but eventually, they will cause the WWIII. Look at Russia. Everyone is afraid of them, so they allow themselves to do whatever they want. Now, when they are ready for war against everyone, they don't mind decreasing the nukes, because they still are a scary nation, and they still can do whatever they want. But without the nukes, they might also attack the US. They don't really have anything to lose, since there is a chance that they'll win, and will become the strongest and richest nation.

Seeing as how Israel's demonstrated how good it is at not listening to the Obama administration anyway, why don't you go ahead?

Do you really think that we're going to listen to the anti-Semitic president of the US, whose voters are even starting to turn against him? No at all. We will keep building in Jerusalem, and in Judea and Samaria, and in all of our country Israel, and some anti-Semite anti-Israeli anti-Zionist pro-Palestinian terror-lover won't tell us to stop. We don't tell you to stop building in your capital Washington, you don't tell us to stop building in our capital Jerusalem. The world may want to devide Jerusalem (just like Berlin, remember?), but it won't happen.

But by your logic no matter how many nuclear weapons we have, Iran 'knows' that we won't use them against it. So what's the point of having more nuclear weapons if we have to spend all this money on monitoring and security, but never actually using them?

And your second to last sentence doesn't make sense.

You need nuclear weapions to scare other nations. Iran, on the other hand, wants to use its nukes against Israel, and therefore they should not have any nuclear weapons. US' situation and Iran's situation are not the same. Russia won't attack you if you have nukes. Iran will.

1) Barack Obama is not Muslim.
2) Barack Obama is not Arab.
3) I very much doubt Barack Obama is anti-Zionist.
4) I very much doubt Barack Obama is anti-Israeli, seeing as his vice-president visited your country. Of course, his view may have changed when your Prime Minister so crudely insulted Joe Biden.
5) In another world war, likely if America went to war the rest of Nato would go to war with it. That's how it becomes a WORLD war.
6) How is it possible to love terror?
7) Supporting Afghanistan has nothing to do with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, except in possibly the most marginal, irrelevant sense possible. Nor does it have anything to do with reducing the US' nuclear stockpile.
8) I imagine that if the US suddenly disappeared off the face of the Earth, Canada would suffer pretty bad. After all, the US and Canada only form the largest trading partnership in the world. Nothing to worry about, right?

Obama have learned in a Muslim school, in Indonesia. He is not 100% Arab, but he is an Arab. He have changed his name from Barry to Barack. He is proud of Islam. His Church is anti-Semitic, his priest is a holocause deniar, but Obama still goes there. My Prime-Minister didn't insult Biden at all. We just said that we're going to build more in Jerusalem, when Biden was here. We have every right to build in Jerusalem, so this Joe Biden should calm down. I didn't say that supporting Afganistan has anything to do with Israel and the Palestinians, or the nuclear weapons. It has something to do with him being an anti-Indian. India doesn't like Obama's support to their enemy Afganistan. It proves that Obama is a Muslim, by his ideology at least. Obama doesn't care about Canada. He doesn't care about any of his allies, because his real friends are the fanatic Muslims.

Between them, America and Russia have tens of thousands of nuclear warheads, and they're not all limited to the old-fashioned kiloton ranges of the ones used towards the end of WW2. They could quite literally wipe out all life on Earth several times over. They don't even have enough delivery systems to make use of them all.

Why have that many? You only need to wipe out all life on Earth just the once. Any more than that would be quite redundant.

It's a remnant of the cold war and nothing more. Nukes cost money not only to build, but to safely store and maintain them. They could save quite a lot of money if they decommissioned a few thousand of the things, and just save enough for the one mass extinction. It's quite a logical way of saving moolah if you ask me, and you'll still be able to wave around the multi-megaton-phallic-tube-of-death if you need to calm down some upstart renegade country in the future.

For money, they are ready to risk humanity. See (on of the many reasosn) why I hate Obama?

[Pethegreat]

Obama have learned for two years in a Muslim school. He eclaimed that he haven't, but in his book he wrote that he have.

Just because he went to "Muslim school" (I don't know the exact details about it hence the quotes) does not imply that he is muslim. I went to a catholic school for 8 years. Does that mean I am catholic?

I also want some sauce on where Obama said he wants to get rid of all nuclear weapons.

You need nuclear weapions to scare other nations. Iran, on the other hand, wants to use its nukes against Israel, and therefore they should not have any nuclear weapons. US' situation and Iran's situation are not the same. Russia won't attack you if you have nukes. Iran will.

Then why don't you write to your government and ask them to nuke Iran right now? I am getting sick of hearing about how much Iran wants to destroy Israel. If you are that worried about it, grow some balls and launch your nukes.

[Tanith]

He describes his father as "raised a Muslim", but a "confirmed atheist" by the time his parents met, and his stepfather as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful". Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand "the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change". He was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for two decades.

Hes no Muslim.

[Nemmerle]

ICBMs were what kept the cold war cold, not nukes.

[Mr. Pedantic]

Obama have learned for two years in a Muslim school. He eclaimed that he haven't, but in his book he wrote that he have.
Also, for now, these are not all of the nuclear rockets, but Obama said that he want the whole world (the Western world, he doesn't care about Iran) to be "free of nukes".

Just because I went to a Christian school for a couple of years does not mean I am automatically a Christian. Also, how could Obama be Arab?

When both the US and Russia have nuclear weapons, they allow themselves to do whatever they want to countries which don't have nukes. If Russia and the US won't have nukes, they might attack each other.

But then, if neither have nukes, then if they do attack each other it will be using conventional warfare. And not to be callous about lives or anything, but in that case, so what?

But why get rid of the nuclear weapons at all? I call US' and Russia's nukes "peace weapons". Why? Because both countries have other strong weapons, and both could pressure each other to use the nukes. Therefore, no one uses them. Iran's and North Korea's nukes I call "war weapons". Why? Because both countries will a) won't be nuked if they attack, and b) they don't have any strong armies, so their only way of war is by nuclear weapons. My country Israel could have used nuclear weapons, and we actually thought about it. But why haven't we done that? Because our normal armies are strong enough to win the wars, without using the nukes. And the enemies are scared of our nuclear weapons.

This is what we have, regarding Israel and Nuclear weapons:

1) Israel won't disclose the extent of it's nuclear weapons program. In fact, Israel won't even publicly admit it has nuclear weapons.
2)Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty.

Given those 2 points, I have to say that whatever your intentions, you're not expressing them very well. At least North Korea is willing to admit that it's developing nuclear weapons.

Oh, and also, I doubt North Korea would invade someone other than South Korea any time soon. They have a very large army, but I doubt it can project force any further than the Korean peninsula.

The plan is to decrease the world's nuclear weapons to zero. Obama and the US do what they do slowly, but eventually, they will cause the WWIII. Look at Russia. Everyone is afraid of them, so they allow themselves to do whatever they want. Now, when they are ready for war against everyone, they don't mind decreasing the nukes, because they still are a scary nation, and they still can do whatever they want. But without the nukes, they might also attack the US. They don't really have anything to lose, since there is a chance that they'll win, and will become the strongest and richest nation.

As you say, the process will happen slowly. So why blame Obama for this? He's neither the one that started, nor the one that finished the process. He's just somewhere in between. So why is his contribution so dire?

And I highly doubt that everyone is afraid of Russia because of nuclear weapons. Russia has very large natural resource reserves, which they leverage. That is why they are powerful. They won't really be better off by attacking the USA. Ever.

Do you really think that we're going to listen to the anti-Semitic president of the US, whose voters are even starting to turn against him? No at all. We will keep building in Jerusalem, and in Judea and Samaria, and in all of our country Israel, and some anti-Semite anti-Israeli anti-Zionist pro-Palestinian terror-lover won't tell us to stop. We don't tell you to stop building in your capital Washington, you don't tell us to stop building in our capital Jerusalem. The world may want to devide Jerusalem (just like Berlin, remember?), but it won't happen.

So then why are you so hesitant to attack Iran?

Obama have learned in a Muslim school, in Indonesia. He is not 100% Arab, but he is an Arab. He have changed his name from Barry to Barack. He is proud of Islam. His Church is anti-Semitic, his priest is a holocause deniar, but Obama still goes there.

These are very interesting claims. Can we get some proof for this? And while you're at it, how about some evidence that all this is relevant?

My Prime-Minister didn't insult Biden at all. We just said that we're going to build more in Jerusalem, when Biden was here. We have every right to build in Jerusalem, so this Joe Biden should calm down.

The purpose Biden was there was to encourage peace talks. Whatever your view on the situation, you must be smart enough to realize that saying you're going to keep on going in Jerusalem is not very conducive to peace.

I didn't say that supporting Afganistan has anything to do with Israel and the Palestinians, or the nuclear weapons. It has something to do with him being an anti-Indian.

What?! What does India have to do with this now?

India doesn't like Obama's support to their enemy Afganistan. It proves that Obama is a Muslim, by his ideology at least. Obama doesn't care about Canada. He doesn't care about any of his allies, because his real friends are the fanatic Muslims.

There's just so much bullshit here I don't know what to say. Refer to the rest of my posts.

[Nemmerle]

Nuclear control should not be a significant issue we have better weapons than nukes now. I can hit a city with a biological or chemical warhead and cause problems for the target on the same magnitude as a nuclear weapon without causing damage to the physical infrastructure. And those chemical or biological weapons are much cheaper than a nuke, won't cause the same problems with radiation as a nuke, and are much easier to get a hold of.

The reason politicians talk about nuclear proliferation is because nukes are relatively easy to control; make the population fixate on one thing and lose track of the fact that the delivery system - the missile - is the more dangerous development. That the ease with which you can get a missile is greatly increased by the spread of computers and so on. Once you have a reasonably accurate ICBM it ultimately doesn't matter whether you have a nuke or not, there are other weapons on the NBC spectrum that are just as nasty.

So we have nuclear arms reduction but is it because we're becoming all fluffy or just because there's better stuff to spend our money on these days than a deterent that was out of date twenty years ago....

[MrFancypants]

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

Nuclear control should not be a significant issue we have better weapons than nukes now. I can hit a city with a biological or chemical warhead and cause problems for the target on the same magnitude as a nuclear weapon without causing damage to the physical infrastructure. And those chemical or biological weapons are much cheaper than a nuke, won't cause the same problems with radiation as a nuke, and are much easier to get a hold of.

The reason politicians talk about nuclear proliferation is because nukes are relatively easy to control; make the population fixate on one thing and lose track of the fact that the delivery system - the missile - is the more dangerous development. That the ease with which you can get a missile is greatly increased by the spread of computers and so on. Once you have a reasonably accurate ICBM it ultimately doesn't matter whether you have a nuke or not, there are other weapons on the NBC spectrum that are just as nasty.

So we have nuclear arms reduction but is it because we're becoming all fluffy or just because there's better stuff to spend our money on these days than a deterent that was out of date twenty years ago....

Nukes work a bit faster though. They are probably more effective against military targets, command centres and logistics as well.