Be careful...

[jasd]

for what you hope - you may get it.

Re Hope and Change, or From the Left:

Obama weighing options of the manner by which he will slash our nuclear force by 80% - decimating it by leaving us with 300 strategic warheads for defense (not since the '50s have we had so few - no counterstrike from that quarter).

It seems that he will also have to reassess his attitudes vis-à-vis the State of Israel, as it seems that they will shortly have more nuclear warheads than us, which may make them indespensable to our defense, sometime near future.

"First Panetta drastically cuts the military budget, then to meet these budget demands, the Pentagon may oust troops. Our Navy is smaller than it has ever been since 1917, the Air Force is smaller and older since its founding and now Obama wants to eliminate 80% of our best deterrent weapons. 'Strength through deterrence' is on the chopping block. We are being neutered, made exposed and vulnerable. This not only puts our own country at risk, but all those who America protects. Obama's living up to his promise to 'profoundly change America'. Now we pay the price." --Holly Deyo

We truly have arrived at our Winning The Future moment, Amerika.

[Bravus]

Only enough to destroy all life on earth once, not 5 times over.

It's a dreadful thing.

[doug yowell]

But ya gotta think politically, the next conservative president can order the ramp up of replacement nukes, so we only have to hope that prophesy doesn't go wrong on our future in the meantime.

[Guest]

Nothing that jasd said is untrue. Those are the facts folks.

[Bravus]

It is a fact that the nuclear arsenal is being reduced.

Whether it is a fact that that is a *bad* thing is very much a matter of perspective...

[doug yowell]

It is a fact that the nuclear arsenal is being reduced.

Whether it is a fact that that is a *bad* thing is very much a matter of perspective...

Also a fact is the drastic reduction in all defense spending including slashing the number of armed forces personel. I'm looking for some "good" in that fact....still looking...it's gotta be here somewhere.OK , I found it...by cutting the defense budget we can have more money available to fund Planned Parenthood, and the NEA, and possibly have enough left over to resurrect Solyndra,and build a bullet train from LA to Vegas.

[jasd]

>>Only enough to destroy all life on earth once, not 5 times over.<<

“IS IT NOT TRUE THAT EACH SUPERPOWER HAS ENOUGH NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO KILL ALL MEMBERS OF MANKIND SEVERAL TIMES OVER? Yes. And the same is true for kitchen knives.

BUT A SINGLE NUCLEAR BOMB CAN WIPE OUT A WHOLE CITY. No, it can't. You would need 438 one-megaton bombs (the power of 22,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs) to destroy Greater Los Angeles [1] and none of them could be "wasted" on pulverizing the rubble, or you would need more. [bolded.jasd]

THEN HOW COME HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI WERE EACH DESTROYED BY A SINGLE BOMB? They weren't. Earth-covered backyard shelters were un- damaged at 100 yards from ground zero, and photos [2] show wood-frame houses at 1 mile from ground zero at Hiroshima badly damaged, but not beyond repair. The day after the blast the bridges were open to traf- fic, the second day trains were operating, and the third day some streetcars resumed service [3]. The people in the two cities had neither warning nor basements; yet in Dresden, where they had both, about as many were killed in the air raid of 13 February 1945 as in Nagasaki.” -- Petr Beckmann

It has always proved best to have more (be they Maxims) and better (modern artillery) should one intend to win conflicts. That would have been in centuries past – with today’s equivalent being national will, missiles, drones and robotics, and ‘energetics’. Other than that, one might pray for good fortune and tactics.

Slim and slimmer. We are being destroyed from within, by a fifth column.

Moreover, history leaves us few if any examples of a worthy legacy left to progeny – by sloth and supineness.

>>It's a dreadful thing.<<

Moreso than one’s progeny having to live the next centuries or millennia the equivalent of bestial Morlocks?—should they be so lucky! More the horror that the likes of Prince Philip or Kissinger may emerge as the Stalin and/or the Mao Tse Tung of the next conflict – with those allowed to survive – forced to worship razor wire and little red books instead of their Father’s Gd.

Gd requires best effort. That would definitely preclude unilateral disarmament. We see the rest of the nations gearing-up whilst we decimate our defenses.

Makes sense? Don’t think so.

So far, there are 80,000 of our troops scheduled for pink slips. More unemployment, eh? Like we ain not got enough unemployment already.

(More Americans died during the First WW from germs than from anything else that may have been conceivably expected on the battlefield)

[jasd]

>>But ya gotta think politically,<<

No choice but...

>>the next conservative president can order the ramp up of replacement nukes,<<

Obama did not promise bilateral reduction, he promised unilateral disarmament – the first step being the reduction with the further intent of total (read: unilateral) elimination of our nuclear capability.

As one pundit put it, “Reckless lunacy!”

Coupla things: one cannot now expect the Democrats to suffer a defeat – without the sort of protest that accompanied the Florida results of the Gore v Dubya election. It will be Gore v Dubya a thousand times over.

“The election was rigged! It was stolen!—by the fundamental churchy enemies of the people! The wealthy Republicans! The one-percenters!”

Oy. Riot and chaos. Me ears already hurt, and me eyes already water from all the burning. The Administration will not turn over the reigns of Govt during such confusion.

Mebbe, I oughta buy some salt and a coupla bags of beans...

Second: one assumes that an enemy will allow a “ramp up”. I’ve seen it too often, the aggressiveness of the stronger, “You pick up that stick and I’ll pop your kneecaps”, whereupon the beaten opponent slumps away.

Remember, Obama doesn’t promise you a bilateral reduction in force, he promises an elimination of our strike and/or deterent force. He promises us the utter loss – of that which we’ve shed our blood, sweat and tears for centuries to attain... that we may leave our children and their children better situated than us.

Our women are commanded in Writ to leave an inheritance for their grandchildren. The way things are going – the only things that will be left as legacy are – misery and sad remembrances. Stories oft told.

Và Pensiero. And weeping.

>>so we only have to hope that prophesy doesn't go wrong on our future in the meantime.<<

Look to the skies and pray for a quick harvest that some may be hid in a pit. We will watch our foodstuff loaded onto convoys of ships stretching from our harbors taking our sustenance elsewhere. You will then

know Apocalypse

and wish you had a stick, ...and some beans.

[jasd]

>>more money available to fund Planned Parenthood, and the NEA, and possibly have enough left over to resurrect Solyndra,and build a bullet train from LA to Vegas.<<

;-)

Don’t forget $800 million earmarked by POTUS for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Sheesh, I coulda used a fraction of that in COLAs these past two years - when inflation was actually going through the roof by every indicator other than that used by the Administration.

Talk about Voodoo graphing.

[Overaged]

True; and there are other weapons/technology that have been developed which make the nukes like a grade school picnic

[phkrause]

Also a fact is the drastic reduction in all defense spending including slashing the number of armed forces personel. I'm looking for some "good" in that fact....still looking...it's gotta be here somewhere.OK , I found it...by cutting the defense budget we can have more money available to fund Planned Parenthood, and the NEA, and possibly have enough left over to resurrect Solyndra,and build a bullet train from LA to Vegas.

And would that be so bad? Now I'm not saying that its good or bad, talking about the reduction of defense. But what it really tells me, is not that one side spends less than the other, what it says to me, is that it has to do with what the money is spent for.