HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Obama administration embr...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:31 AM

Obama administration embraces major new cut in nuclear weapons

Source: Miami Herald

Senior Obama administration officials have agreed that the number of nuclear warheads the U.S. military deploys could be cut by at least a third without harming national security, according to those involved in the deliberations.

Such a reduction would open the door to billions of dollars in military savings, which might ease the federal budget deficit. It also would improve prospects for a new arms deal with Russia before President Barack Obama leaves office, those involved said, but it’s likely to draw fire from conservatives, if previous debate on the issue is any guide.

The results of the internal review haven’t been announced, but they’re reflected in a proposed classified directive prepared for Obama’s signature that details how U.S. nuclear weapons should be targeted against potential foes, according to four people with direct knowledge of the document’s content. The sources, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to talk to a reporter about the review, described the president as fully on board, but said he hasn’t signed the document.

The document directs the first detailed Pentagon revisions in U.S. targeting since 2009, when the military’s nuclear war planners last took account for the substantial shrinkage – roughly by half from 2000 to 2008 – in the number of nuclear weapons in the American arsenal. It makes clear that an even smaller nuclear force can still meet all defense requirements.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/08/v-fullstory/3222265/obama-administration-embraces.html

10 replies, 1859 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to bananas (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:50 AM

1. Oh noes now he's grabbin' our nukes too........








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananas (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:58 AM

2. Park those useless submarines

...they’re “poorly suited to address the challenges posed by suicidal terrorists and unfriendly regimes seeking nuclear weapons.”


Ivan isn't going to send a wave of ICBMs at us, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:35 AM

5. I am more in favor of sealing up silos than removing our SSBN deterrent

MAD appears to have worked through the Cold War, and the fact that we have a fundamentally untraceable and unreachable deterrent somewhere out there is more of a protection than hardened but reachable nukes. The fact that a can of sunshine is possibly 30 minutes from your capital will keep "sane" belligerents from glassing a US city or American base.
As for other actors? We need to develop a practical and effective ABM system, and once that umbrella is in place, then we consider mothballing our nuclear deterrent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 02:10 PM

6. I would like to maximize savings

Subs and bombers have more personnel costs.
Thanks for your response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #6)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 07:31 AM

10. Wouldn't matter, they'd convert the SSBN's to SSGN's.

Dump the silos and the Bomber delivered strat nukes.

If you take the nukes off the SSBN's they'll still keep the boats, and just turn them into joint seal delivery and cruise missile launch platforms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananas (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:11 AM

3. That's why Bob Corker R-TN is going after Hagel. He asked him about nukes during the hearings.

I think he's concerned about losing funding for Oak Ridge, TN Y-12 facility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananas (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:20 AM

4. We need 0 (zero) nuclear weapons. (period)

 

Last edited Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Bananas, you and I & L0oniX were tha only ones who Posted way back in October 2012.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=67223


Look people, if India & Pakistan nuke each other, odds are it would be worse than the Permian extinction.

If you have kids or care about life on earth (I care about all, but humans are in last place) than you ought to be campaigning against nukes. (i worry who will take care of the dogs & puppies?)

I would rather have all the molecules in my body blown to atoms than live through a nuke war & die slowly from starvation & radiation.

You know last summer they discovered a warp drive that could get 4.3 light years in two weeks. I have finally decided the human race has no place screwing up the galaxy as bad as we are doing here at home.

Not that my opinion matters...................

warp drive soon? http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive
or extinction, which comes first?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananas (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:50 PM

7. "likely to draw fire from conservatives" - like if he supports Mother's Day

RW radio was telling the dashboard believers today about this in outrage...and then complaining about not cutting spending

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananas (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:55 PM

8. Open the border and close ammunition plants

 

nukes too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananas (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:17 PM

9. Use the weapons grade material to start thorium reactors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread