Well, I suppose the politically correct thing to do, is call you a liar.

 

OUR HERO!!! We might as well just give some away while were at it.

Associated Press

The Obama administration disclosed the size of its atomic stockpile going back to 1962 as part of a campaign to get other nuclear nations to be more forthcoming

WASHINGTON -- The United States has 5,113 nuclear warheads in its stockpile and "several thousand" more retired warheads awaiting the junkpile, the Pentagon said Monday in an unprecedented accounting of a secretive arsenal born in the Cold War and now shrinking rapidly.
The Obama administration disclosed the size of its atomic stockpile going back to 1962 as part of a campaign to get other nuclear nations to be more forthcoming, and to improve its bargaining position against the prospect of a nuclear Iran.
"We think it is in our national security interest to be as transparent as we can be about the nuclear program of the United States," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters at the United Nations, where she addressed a conference on containing the spread of atomic weapons.
The U.S. has previously regarded such details as top secret.
The figure includes both "strategic," or long-range weapons, and those intended for use at shorter range.
The Pentagon said the stockpile of 5,113 as of September 2009 represents a 75 percent reduction since 1989.
A rough count of deployed and reserve warheads has been known for years, so the Pentagon figures do not tell nuclear experts much they don't already know.
Hans Kristensen, director of Nuclear Information Project, Federation of American Scientists in Washington, said his organization had already put the number at around 5,100 by reviewing budget estimates and other documents.
The import of the announcement is the precedent it sets, Kristensen said.
"The important part is that the U.S. is no longer going to keep other countries in the dark," he said.
Clinton said the disclosure of numbers the general public has never seen "builds confidence" that the Obama administration is serious about stopping the spread of atomic weapons and reducing their numbers.
But the administration is not revealing everything.
The Pentagon figure released Monday includes deployed weapons, which are those more or less ready to launch, and reserve weapons. It does not include thousands of warheads that have been disabled or all but dismantled. Those weapons could, in theory, be reconstituted, or their nuclear material repurposed.
Estimates of the total U.S. arsenal range from slightly more than 8,000 to above 9,000, but the Pentagon will not give a precise number.
Whether to reveal the full total, including those thousands of nearly dead warheads, was debated within the Obama administration. Keeping those weapons out of the figure released Monday represented a partial concession to intelligence agency officials and others who argued national security could be harmed by laying the entire nuclear arsenal bare.
A senior defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the overall total is still classified, did not dispute the rough estimates developed by independent analysts.
Exposure of once-classified totals for U.S. deployed and reserve nuclear weapons is intended to nudge nations such as China, which has revealed little about its nuclear stockpile.
"You can't get anywhere toward disarmament unless you're going to be transparent about how many weapons you have," said Sharon Squassoni, a nuclear policy analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Russia and the United States have previously disclosed the size of their stockpiles of deployed strategic weapons, and France and Britain have released similar information. All have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which is the subject of the U.N. review that began Monday.
The U.S. revelations are calculated to improve Washington's bargaining power with Iran's allies and friends for the drive to head off what the West charges is a covert Iranian program to build a bomb.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahamadinejad spoke ahead of Clinton at the conference, denouncing U.S. efforts to pressure his regime to abandon its nuclear program.
The U.N. conference will try to close loopholes in the internationally recognized rules against the spread of weapons technology.
Independent analysts estimate the total world stockpile of nuclear warheads at more than 22,000.
The Federation of American Scientists estimates that nearly 8,000 of those warheads are operational, with about 2,000 U.S. and Russian warheads ready for use on short notice.
The United States and Russia burnished their credentials for insisting that other countries forgo atomic weapons by agreeing last month to a new strategic arms reduction treaty.
The New START treaty sets a limit of 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads for each side, down from 2,200 under a 2002 deal. The pact re-establishes anti-cheating procedures that provide the most comprehensive and substantial arms control agreement since the original 1991 START treaty.

• 
  
  

 

Oh brother!...... :roll::roll:

Now, even an attempt by the administration to bring the world BACK from the brink of nuclear war is seen as some kind of "anti-American" plot! :hellno:

Is there ANYTHING this black man could do that would meet with your approval? :bow:

Don't answer that! Abdication or self lynching are NOT options on the table! :lol2:

[Hey, Robertt.... did you catch episode two last night? ]

 

My problem is not that we are trying to "scale down". I'm all for Peace:nixon:but maybe we should make sure that we are STILL, THE Superpower before we go letting everyone know our strengths. MAYBE we shouldn't be letting the WORLD know what is in our NUCLEAR arsenal. Just sayin, what do I know.

For what it's worth, I could care a less what color ANY President is, or ANYBODY for that matter. I have NEVER interjected color into any argument about this particular president. If you can prove me wrong....well.....you'll have to prove me wrong. IDIOTS come in all colors.

No I didn't get a chance to see the second episode. Was it good? My folks are putting them on DVD for me and I was planning on watching it then. I wouldn't have known about the first episode if you hadn't mentioned it. I have a lot of "kid" stuff to do in the evenings so I really don't watch TV except when I'm eating supper, I get caught up a little on the news.

 

robertt said:
You know plenty robertt. So, I'm SURE you know that, with the fall of the wall, America IS the last superpower standing! But.... we must now watch China. There is no "overwhelming" nuclear attack to be feared today. It is the "lone wolf" missile or backpack dirty bomb that we must turn our vigilance to. BTW.... the whole world DOES know what our nuclear inventory is.

I can't prove you wrong. I believe you. (I even agree with you.) But, I should have "declared" that I was using the "collective YOU." I seem to forget to remind everyone of that on a weekly basis. Using the collective you, allows me to attack a THOUGHT or STATEMENT without attacking the trucker that SAID it! To be HONEST??? By the time I GET to the word "you," I've already forgotten WHO I was debating.... :lol2:

I really mean no HARM to anyone.

Not AS good as the premier, but okay. Standard "Oregon Trail" footage, with a little intro by Dan'l Boone. Also covered the Gold Rushes. Things are moving quickly! I hope they slow down by early 1900's. I'd like to see a "politician" or a "thinker" given some credit for at least SOME part of the evolution of our country.

That's a good thing. It will be well worth it, I believe. On the History website, you can BUY the collection if something happens. I'll wait to see how good the series IS before investing in the "product."

"I" wouldn't have known about the first episode if I hadn't PAUSED for a minute on the History channel. Well.... I watch it sometimes. I don't know HOW I managed to see the 'advert' for this... but, I'm glad I did. I really thought it was apropos (that's for YOU, Hoggie) to our discussions AND concerns lately.

What?? Between EMAILS??? :lol2::rofl:

Sorry.... couldn't resist. Now.... no more of this PC "hugging crap!" Me 'n Hoggie are gonna go cruise the ZOO!! :clap:

YOU and I are diabolical (or is that diametric) ENEMIES!!! NEVER forget that! :lol2::lol2:

 

Actually, I get on computer, go play, he goes to neighbors, I get on computer, he comes back, we play:banana1::banana3:utnumbered::jump:, he leaves again, on and on and on.

I would call you a name but I don't have anything at this moment to reference it too so it will have to wait.:smokin: Besides, I have to get to T-ball practice, well not me, but since my son isn't old enough to drive:eek2: I'll have to take him.

 

OK .... I'll admit I didn't read the whole thread but, I just gotta ask; When it comes to this whole "superpower" thing....... There can only be ONE on the top of the list. Who would you want it to be??? Who would you want to be at the top of the list for military might???


Just a thought to ponder,


Ridge

 

:bow: ............. Dr. Evil





(not to be confused with cousin Doctor Who)

 

Well, this thread wasn't mostly about the "superpower" thing. However, there is no reason why only ONE could occupy a somewhat equal standing at the top. That used to be us and the USSR. Now, I guess it's us and china.

Obviously, we all want to remain at the top. But, the new treaty really isn't about that. It's about ensuring more control over Russia's "loose nukes" that may too easily fall into terrorist's hands. AND it's about reducing overall nuclear arsenals to TRY to show nuclear wannabe's that there is no need or future in it.

MY problem was simply that "they" want to dredge up everything Obama does and try to find SOME kind of "un-American" rationale for it. Robertt seems to think that PCness is behind it as well. I just don't see it.

The era of MAD is long over (unless we have to worry about China blowing up their best market.) WE can make better use of our military budget, and Russia is so broke that they CAN'T manage their arsenal with acceptable security.

Should it have been one of Obama's highest priorities right now? Can't say for sure. But, did he do anything that any OTHER POTUS wouldn't do under the circumstances? I don't think so.

Heck, even the WORST president we could ever have would have to do SOMETHING right now and then! Even BUSH did!

When a "party" cries "wolf" on EVERY action, they lose credibility for any substantial claim they might ever come up with. THAT is where we stand politically today.

 

Well, I’m sure there is, but he hasn’t done a single thing yet that meets with my approval.

Too late!

Why not? Sounds like a perfectly acceptable solution to me. I'd like to add in turning himself in for treason or self-deportation to that list, you know, to kind of give him a few extra options.

He’s already sitting in the White House.

BTW, I’ve been watching that History Channel series, too, along with my 14 year old son who really digs history. Very good show…I’m really looking forward to getting into modern days and seeing how things are explained. So far, it’s been very well put together…a little scarce on some things for the simple matter that they are trying to capture out entire American history in 12 hours. But overall to this point, 2 thumbs up.