Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

Artesian · 04-06-2010, 01:16 PM

President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to constrain the use of the nation's Cold War-era nuclear arsenal, in a bold but politically risky move aimed at discouraging the technology from spreading.

Well I sure feel safer. How about you?
A

Oldschool · 04-06-2010, 02:03 PM

Actually I do.

deadwolfbones · 04-06-2010, 02:09 PM

Yep, its a good thing to set an example.

shiner · 04-06-2010, 02:44 PM

Yet another foolish, "progressive", feel-good move by the Administration, this time limiting our official list of possible responses to a devastating attack. Does this not increase the likelihood of such an attack? Thanks a lot, Mr. President.

Parallax · 04-06-2010, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by shiner

Yet another foolish, "progressive", feel-good move by the Administration, this time limiting our official list of possible responses to a devastating attack. Does this not increase the likelihood of such an attack? Thanks a lot, Mr. President.

I see it that way too, shiner. Being the eternal optimist that I am though (oh, what!?

), I would like to think that he would instantly, if necessary, reverse his ridiculous policy.

deadwolfbones · 04-06-2010, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by shiner

Yet another foolish, "progressive", feel-good move by the Administration, this time limiting our official list of possible responses to a devastating attack. Does this not increase the likelihood of such an attack? Thanks a lot, Mr. President.

What does retaliation matter if the USA is nuked? Revenge?

Nesster · 04-06-2010, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

What does retaliation matter if the USA is nuked? Revenge?

An end to global warming, we'll have nuclear winter instead, and Oh Boy won't we put them 4x4's to good use then. Show them Europeans what a real truck can do.

Rupert · 04-06-2010, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by shiner

Yet another foolish, "progressive", feel-good move by the Administration, this time limiting our official list of possible responses to a devastating attack. Does this not increase the likelihood of such an attack? Thanks a lot, Mr. President.

Mostly a political maneuver, with little actual significance. Your fears are ridiculously unfounded. One nuclear armed submarine can take out an entire country....any country.....do a little research and see how many we have. Don't look for us to be defenseless anytime soon...like in your lifetime. Just another reason to Obama bash.....nothing more. Obama is just Black...not stupid.
Regards!

larryinlc · 04-06-2010, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Artesian

Cold War-era nuclear arsenal,
A

Does that old stuff even work anymore? Imagine all the billions spent to babysit all those aging missle silos. I agree with Rupert. Just one nuclear sub can get the job done of all those vintage nukes combined. New nukes are not your fathers nukes.

Larry

---------- Post added 04-06-2010 at 04:33 PM ----------

I just read about this proposal and I have may have misunderstood this thread. Still, we can all sleep well at night knowing that we can still kill. Maybe not just 100 times dead, but that's splitting hairs.

"In 2009, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists estimated the U.S. nuclear stockpile at 5,200 nuclear bombs, including 2,200 operational, long-range strategic weapons.

The new treaty to be signed Thursday by the United States and Russia will limit each country to 1,550 strategic warheads, 700 deployed strategic delivery vehicles and 800 deployed and nondeployed strategic launchers, according to the Pentagon.

All U.S. Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles will be limited to a single warhead, according the Pentagon, "to increase stability."

Ratmagiclady · 04-06-2010, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by larryinlc

All U.S. Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles will be limited to a single warhead, according the Pentagon, "to increase stability."
[/B]

It will.

Do you know what an 'MIRB bus' is?

One mistaken launch, seven thermonuclear bombs, seven cities.

graphicgr8s · 04-06-2010, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by Ratmagiclady

It will.

Do you know what an 'MIRB bus' is?

One mistaken launch, seven thermonuclear bombs, seven cities.

Well I didn't know what it was. And neither does google.

Rupert · 04-06-2010, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by graphicgr8s

Well I didn't know what it was. And neither does google.

Well, don't ask for help over in that evolution thread...not a damn one of those guys can Google....they've been trying to find that lizard for two weeks and still no luck! Someone will find a new "Missing Link" before they locate that famous lizard.......
Regards!

Ratmagiclady · 04-06-2010, 09:13 PM

Pardon if I got the spelling wrong, or, if Google didn't exist before your attention span.

I mean, if you wanna complain about your taxes, we're surely *still* paying GE for the infernal things. You were probably screaming for em at the time, and you don't even know what it is.

Point. Yes, lots of warheads, single boost vehicle, ... Not stability.

What's so *hard* about that?

PeteyJ · 04-06-2010, 10:55 PM

If we reduced the number of nukes we have from however many we have to as low as couple hundred, that's still more than enough to turn any other country in the world into a giant parking lot.

Do I feel safer? Maybe not. Less safe? Definitely not.

And I believe RML means MIRV bus. It's an ICBM that carries multiple warheads. Launch a couple of those, and we have ourselves a barbecue

Ratmagiclady · 04-06-2010, 11:11 PM

Thanks, Petey.

But that was yesterday's Armageddon, wasn't it?

Eh?

04-06-2010, 01:16 PM	#1
Artesian Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 365	Obama calls nuclear strategy 'significant step' President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed to constrain the use of the nation's Cold War-era nuclear arsenal, in a bold but politically risky move aimed at discouraging the technology from spreading. Well I sure feel safer. How about you? A

04-06-2010, 09:13 PM	#13
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Pardon if I got the spelling wrong, or, if Google didn't exist before your attention span. I mean, if you wanna complain about your taxes, we're surely still paying GE for the infernal things. You were probably screaming for em at the time, and you don't even know what it is. Point. Yes, lots of warheads, single boost vehicle, ... Not stability. What's so hard about that? Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 04-06-2010 at 09:20 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
US to adopt narrower policy on using nuclear arms	Artesian	General Talk	11	04-06-2010 09:34 PM
The Future is here: The Camera that makes calls	kevinschoenmakers	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	0	09-29-2009 11:45 PM
demystifying digital calls k-7 a surprise	312m	Pentax News and Rumors	2	06-10-2009 02:15 PM
Step up or Step down ring for FA 50mm f1.4 and filters.	Xcom	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	4	05-11-2009 11:56 PM
A Step-by step guide to using M and A Lenses	krs	Pentax DSLR Discussion	33	03-18-2008 07:21 PM

04-06-2010, 02:03 PM	#2
Oldschool Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Central NJ Posts: 1,278	Actually I do.

04-06-2010, 02:09 PM	#3
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Santa Fe, NM Posts: 7,451	Yep, its a good thing to set an example.

04-06-2010, 02:44 PM	#4
shiner Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: N GA USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,127	Yet another foolish, "progressive", feel-good move by the Administration, this time limiting our official list of possible responses to a devastating attack. Does this not increase the likelihood of such an attack? Thanks a lot, Mr. President.

04-06-2010, 02:54 PM	#5
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,333	Originally posted by shiner Yet another foolish, "progressive", feel-good move by the Administration, this time limiting our official list of possible responses to a devastating attack. Does this not increase the likelihood of such an attack? Thanks a lot, Mr. President. I see it that way too, shiner. Being the eternal optimist that I am though (oh, what!? ), I would like to think that he would instantly, if necessary, reverse his ridiculous policy.

04-06-2010, 02:58 PM	#6
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Santa Fe, NM Posts: 7,451	Originally posted by shiner Yet another foolish, "progressive", feel-good move by the Administration, this time limiting our official list of possible responses to a devastating attack. Does this not increase the likelihood of such an attack? Thanks a lot, Mr. President. What does retaliation matter if the USA is nuked? Revenge?

04-06-2010, 03:00 PM	#7
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Originally posted by deadwolfbones What does retaliation matter if the USA is nuked? Revenge? An end to global warming, we'll have nuclear winter instead, and Oh Boy won't we put them 4x4's to good use then. Show them Europeans what a real truck can do.

04-06-2010, 03:06 PM	#8
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Originally posted by shiner Yet another foolish, "progressive", feel-good move by the Administration, this time limiting our official list of possible responses to a devastating attack. Does this not increase the likelihood of such an attack? Thanks a lot, Mr. President. Mostly a political maneuver, with little actual significance. Your fears are ridiculously unfounded. One nuclear armed submarine can take out an entire country....any country.....do a little research and see how many we have. Don't look for us to be defenseless anytime soon...like in your lifetime. Just another reason to Obama bash.....nothing more. Obama is just Black...not stupid. Regards!

04-06-2010, 03:22 PM	#9
larryinlc Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Wisconsin USA Posts: 993	Originally posted by Artesian Cold War-era nuclear arsenal, A Does that old stuff even work anymore? Imagine all the billions spent to babysit all those aging missle silos. I agree with Rupert. Just one nuclear sub can get the job done of all those vintage nukes combined. New nukes are not your fathers nukes. Larry ---------- Post added 04-06-2010 at 04:33 PM ---------- I just read about this proposal and I have may have misunderstood this thread. Still, we can all sleep well at night knowing that we can still kill. Maybe not just 100 times dead, but that's splitting hairs. "In 2009, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists estimated the U.S. nuclear stockpile at 5,200 nuclear bombs, including 2,200 operational, long-range strategic weapons. The new treaty to be signed Thursday by the United States and Russia will limit each country to 1,550 strategic warheads, 700 deployed strategic delivery vehicles and 800 deployed and nondeployed strategic launchers, according to the Pentagon. All U.S. Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles will be limited to a single warhead, according the Pentagon, "to increase stability."

04-06-2010, 06:47 PM	#10
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by larryinlc All U.S. Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles will be limited to a single warhead, according the Pentagon, "to increase stability." [/B] It will. Do you know what an 'MIRB bus' is? One mistaken launch, seven thermonuclear bombs, seven cities.

04-06-2010, 08:17 PM	#11
graphicgr8s Guest	Originally posted by Ratmagiclady It will. Do you know what an 'MIRB bus' is? One mistaken launch, seven thermonuclear bombs, seven cities. Well I didn't know what it was. And neither does google.

04-06-2010, 09:03 PM	#12
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Originally posted by graphicgr8s Well I didn't know what it was. And neither does google. Well, don't ask for help over in that evolution thread...not a damn one of those guys can Google....they've been trying to find that lizard for two weeks and still no luck! Someone will find a new "Missing Link" before they locate that famous lizard....... Regards!

04-06-2010, 10:55 PM	#14
PeteyJ Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Chicago/Cleveland Posts: 176	If we reduced the number of nukes we have from however many we have to as low as couple hundred, that's still more than enough to turn any other country in the world into a giant parking lot. Do I feel safer? Maybe not. Less safe? Definitely not. And I believe RML means MIRV bus. It's an ICBM that carries multiple warheads. Launch a couple of those, and we have ourselves a barbecue

04-06-2010, 11:11 PM	#15
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Thanks, Petey. But that was yesterday's Armageddon, wasn't it? Eh?

Obama calls nuclear strategy 'significant step'

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!