Apparently, Barack Obama is planning on slashing America’s nuclear arsenal. It seems that within his and his elite liberal friend’s life paradigm, if you are weak then the big guys won’t pick on you. I submit that view of the world doesn’t work very well in the real world.
Sadly, we have to go to the European newspapers and blogs to get the real story on a lot of these issues. Specifically, the United Kingdom. I noticed that when Barack Obama hosted British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the White House shortly after he took office. Then it happened again when Obama and the Mrs. took to Beverly Hillbillies Go to Europe Tour. That would be the first time they went after he became President. The subsequent trips were much the same, but it was the first time that I really noticed the difference in how the news was being reported in Europe and how it was being reported here.
The American press was busy having their orgasmic slobbering love affair with the Obama’s, were simply basking in the afterglow and looking longingly and lovingly upon the objects of their affections during all these visits. The European press was not so taken with them. In fact, they were downright objective in their coverage. That would never do here in the States. They wondered if he didn’t have a Chief of Protocol to explain things like, you know, protocol to him. They wondered why The One thought the Queen of England would be interested in an iPod full of Obama’s speeches. They wondered why the Obamas gave such little thought to the gifts they gave to other world leaders while the Bushes had been so thoughtful in their gift giving.
They also wondered if Obama realized he wasn’t elected President of the world. He wasn’t, after all, their president, so why did he act as if he was. Little did they know that was, by all appearances, in his mind all along.
Now, Obama is acting on his dreams of a nuclear free world. While that is a marvelous dream, unfortunately, his vision seems to be disarming the good guys first (that would be us). I guess he thinks if he disarms the United States, then Russia and Iran will feel all bad about being the ‘bad guys’ and disarm voluntarily. Of course, he doesn’t indicate whether he thinks that will happen before or after they annihilate the United States and Israel. Small details don’t seem to be his forte.
Learn more about Obama’s nuclear free world dream and the foreign press’s irritating habit of being more honest than the American press at Jammie Wearing Fool.
Interestingly, at the same time that Obama is weakening America and announcing to the world that we are getting rid of our nukes, the top world nuclear watchdogs are reporting that Iran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb. Check it out at The Noisy Room. This should make all the liberals feel much safer now!
Here’s some more news from my traveling around the internet …
Fausta’s Blog – Breaking news: ZELAYA BACK IN HONDURAS
Big Hollywood – EXPLOSIVE NEW AUDIO Reveals White House Using NEA to Push Partisan Agenda
Yid with a Lid – Obama Tries to Intimidate Humana Corp to Stop Talking About Government Health Care Option
Weasel Zippers – Biden: If GOP Wins Back House in 2010 it’s the “End of the Road” for Obama’s Agenda…
Flopping Aces – To Win Or Lose In Afghanistan…Obama’s Moment Of Truth
The Tygrrrr Express – Rosh Hashanah and Football…Perfect Together
Pat Dollard – Ignorance Is Bliss: “ACORN Is Not A Major National Issue”
Atlas Shrugged – Railroading Rifqa: The Persecution of Rifqa Bary, American Apostate
Dr. Melissa Clouthier – Violence Serves the Left
Cassie Fiano – Joy Behar: Spanking is Child Abuse
Doug Powers – Obama on Letterman
Bare Naked Islam – American Taxpayers must pay to protect the enemies of America
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:53 am
[...] weakening American says rightpundit. ‘It seems that within his and his elite liberal friend’s life paradigm, if you are weak [...]
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:31 am
What are we talking about when we say “slashing”? You always hear those stats about how we have enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the earth several times over. I’m admittedly not caught up on the numbers, but if there’s any truth to that, I don’t see what’s wrong with slashing our stockpile. We can probably be content with the ability to blow the earth to oblivion a mere single time, no?
Anybody have any hard numbers on our current stockpile, its capabilities in terms of destructive power, and the extent of the proposed reduction? All I see on the Guardian story regarding numbers is this:
Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.
But what exactly can “hundreds…of deployed strategic warheads” do? What can thousands do? I have no clue. I’m open to debate on this thing, so I’d like some measurements.
(Also, that’s a cool pic)
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Beth, I hope they keep at least one bomb, for your head.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:45 pm
@Klo: Wow, that’s nice.
Nobody has any numbers for me? Absent that information, I have to consider nuclear deceleration to be a good thing.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Thank you Klo – you are just a darlin’ – really.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Rhayader – can you tell me when this president has ever given specifics? Or stuck to them? Or was transparent in any way?
September 22nd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
So much for being a world power on foreign policy.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Charles, don’t you see, we just have to be nice to everyone and then they will see that we are a world power. We just have to think happy thoughts and everything will be alright.
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:02 am
Rhayader – can you tell me when this president has ever given specifics? Or stuck to them? Or was transparent in any way?
Well I agree wholeheartedly, but I wasn’t asking about what Obama said, I was asking about the actual measurement of our nuclear stockpile, and the extent to which it will be cut. I assume these estimates could be obtained without Obama directly giving them in a speech. It’s hard to criticize (or support) a “slash” of our nuclear arsenal without knowing where we stand right now, and where the decrease will get us.
With that disclaimer, my default position is support of nuclear disarmament, no matter what country is involved.
September 25th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
[...] now he has told the world he will disarm the United States. Now that should take care of everything! You see, if your world view is that the United States is [...]
September 28th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Rhayader,
The following link will provide an estimate of the number of warheads, by warhead type, in the US arsenal as of August 2007. This estimate should not be given 100% credibility.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Wpngall.html
Those warheads that are listed as active can be considered as ready for immediate use, but it should be noted that it does not differentiate between those active warheads that are immediately deployable and those that are not. For example, A Trident Submarine carries 24 Trident Missiles. We currently have fourteen Trident Submarines, but only a few are on active patrol at any given time,
Also, it is important to understand that each of these missiles on a Trident Submarine is a MIRV (Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle) capable missile and can carry as many as 12 independently targetable warheads. The START I treaty limited each SLBM (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile) to carrying no more than 8 warheads. The ‘Moscow Treaty’ of 2003 (SORT – Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty) further limits the number of warheads to four or five per missile.
Even at four warheads per missile, a single Trident Submarine can carry 96 W88 thermonuclear warheads, with each warhead having a yield of 475 KT (Kilotons). To put that in perspective, the Hiroshima bomb was about 15 KT. That means that each Trident sub can throw 96 warheads at independent targets, with each warhead having the equivalent explosive force of almost 32 times the explosive force of the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. That is 3040 times the Hiroshima bomb in total yield.
What is more important is that the W88 warheads are extremely accurate. They have a CEP (Circular Error Probable) of 300-400 ft. That CEP means that 50% of the warheads can be expected to hit within 300-400 ft of their target. These are accurate enough to be considered a ‘Counterforce’ weapon, which means that they can take out land-based missiles in their silos at about a 95% rate if two warheads are targeted for each silo.
START I expires in less than three months, and SORT expires Dec 31, 2012. That means that the number of warheads that may be placed in a Single Trident Submarine beginning on Jan 1, 2013 will revert back to 12 per missile times 24 missiles, which equals 288 warheads instead of 96. I will let you do the math as far as the total yield (but it still comes out to over 9,000 times the yield of the Hiroshima bomb).
The accuracy of those warheads would still remain the same, so a single Trident Submarine could take out about 135 Russian missiles in their silos if they carry 288 warheads. Five Trident Submarines could destroy about 684 land-based missiles if they were to be used in a first strike, as long as they were not limited in the number of warheads that they can carry. That means that if the Russians detect a launch, even if it is a false alarm, they only have a few minutes to decide whether to retaliate with a full strike against the United States before more than half of their current silo-based missiles are destroyed. We would still have the missile on nine Trident Submarines available and all of our land-based missiles left if they don’t launch a retaliatory strike before loosing all of those land-based missiles.
What the Russians would have left after loosing those 684 land-based missiles would be a handful of their less accurate land-based missiles (we would naturally target their most accurate generation of land-based missiles) and their Submarine-based missiles. Their Submarine based missiles are also less accurate than the Trident Missiles. What they had left if they allowed those 684 missiles to be destroyed would not be enough for a ‘counter-force’ strike against us and they would then be left with the alternative of a ‘countervalue’ strike (cities and civilian centers).
Both sides would still have bombers, but they are so slow that any Russian bombers that made it through our air defenses would still only be good as countervalue weapons.
.
.
.
.
It should be noted that before the advent of the highly accurate MIRV re-entry vehicles, both sides had the luxury of ‘riding out’ a first strike and launching a retaliatory strike afterwards, The reason they could do that was because neither side had the ability to destroy the other side’s ability to effectively retaliate. This meant that a false alarm would be detectable before a retaliatory strike was launched, simply because there would be no mushrooms sprouting over the desert. The advent of highly accurate MIRVs has pushed both sides to a ‘hair-trigger’ mode. The other side can effectively castrate you with a first strike if you don’t get your missiles off before they hit. They will then still have more than enough weapons left to take out your cities next, and you will have nothing left to hit back with…..that is the recipe for instant capitulation!!!!
The ‘hair trigger’ means that to wait for verification of an actual attack by detecting actual nuclear explosions is no longer an option. You have to make a decision whether to launch BEFORE you know that an actual attack is in process and not just that some mouse just chewed through a cable in your computer room.
Does that information help???
By the way…..
The scenario operates the same in reverse, except it would be the Russians left holding the cards if they struck first. Therefore, we would be under the same ‘Hair-trigger’ rules as the Russians.