How about toning down the rhetoric and give us reasons why this is a "brilliant move" and whatever your point is about Iran, Cuba, N. Korea, etc?

 

Point would be that our "enemy" is no longer an identifiable entity, but a movement with many faces that uses terror as its primary weapon; and doesn't play by our politically correct rules. Tough to negotiate with someone you can't even identify, which seems to be Obama's only idea.

 

In any case, its not real smart to let your opponent know what your strengths & weaknesses are--Best to keep them guessing?? "All warfare is based on deception"--Sun Tzu

 

Second point (Iran, etc.) was sarcasm, sorry I didn't label it for you??

Having enough nuclear weapons to either survive a first attack and counter-attack as well as having enough to completely destroy a target country is a strong deterrent against a nuclear attack. I don't think the significance of that can be overstated, personally.

 

 

:thumb::thumb:

No and that is the point of maintaining a stockpile. Mutually Assured Destruction is an excellent promoter of peace.

 

Mutually Assured Destruction is only a deterrent in a situation in which all parties involved are rational actors.

Point would be that our "enemy" is no longer an identifiable entity, but a movement with many faces that uses terror as its primary weapon; and doesn't play by our politically correct rules. Tough to negotiate with someone you can't even identify, which seems to be Obama's only idea.

 

But in this faceless warfare in which the enemy is highly mobile, what exactly would we be targeting with a nuclear weapon? Why would those groups care how many warheads we have?

Point would be that our "enemy" is no longer an identifiable entity, but a movement with many faces that uses terror as its primary weapon; and doesn't play by our politically correct rules. Tough to negotiate with someone you can't even identify, which seems to be Obama's only idea.

 

In any case, its not real smart to let your opponent know what your strengths & weaknesses are--Best to keep them guessing?? "All warfare is based on deception"--Sun Tzu

 

Second point (Iran, etc.) was sarcasm, sorry I didn't label it for you??

 

Well said-the best offense is a good defense.

I got a questions.

 

How many of you remember the school nuclear attack drills and the bomb shelters that people use to have in their backyards and basements?

^ I remember having drills in elementary school where we all protected ourselves by climbing under our desks.

I got a questions.

 

How many of you remember the school nuclear attack drills and the bomb shelters that people use to have in their backyards and basements?

 

Sure do.

It goes well with the idea that, between us and Russia, we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy humanity six times over. As if we need to do it more than once.

 

After the first wave the rest just "bounce the rubble."

Jumbo shrimp

Race walking

Business ethics

Compassionate conservative

 

Logical Liberal would be another to add to that list

^ I remember having drills in elementary school where we all protected ourselves by climbing under our desks.

 

Lewis Black has a wonderful piece in his stand-up about that.....

 

 

Back to the topic.

 

 

This has no bearing on anything. If it was Israel(who has never came out and said the have nukes) it would be different. I read the other day 5 Nukes and Israel would be useless.

Lewis Black has a wonderful piece in his stand-up about that.....

 

 

Back to the topic.

 

 

This has no bearing on anything. If it was Israel(who has never came out and said the have nukes) it would be different. I read the other day 5 Nukes and Israel would be useless.

 

Actually it should be part of the topic.

 

If we are going to worry about other countries knowing about how many nuclear weapons we have shouldn't we be preparing our people for the inevitable? They did back in the 1960's when it was a very good possibilty of an attack.

Mutually Assured Destruction is only a deterrent in a situation in which all parties involved are rational actors.

 

 

By and large yes, but I have yet to see something keep a big war from happening as effectively as MAD.

 

Despite what people may think we haven't been involved in a sizable conflict since 1945. Everything else was minimal by comparison. Nuclear weapons have prevented another war like that from happening on a large scale.

By and large yes, but I have yet to see something keep a big war from happening as effectively as MAD.

 

Despite what people may think we haven't been involved in a sizable conflict since 1945. Everything else was minimal by comparison. Nuclear weapons have prevented another war like that from happening on a large scale.

 

Is it JUST nuclear weapons but also the notion that the US has shown that they are willing to use major weapons against their enemies to end conflicts?

Seriously...what difference does it make. It only takes one.

 

If you live where it's detonated...one can't destroy us all though.

 

5000 could do a little more damage.