[Peter Zack]

Sarah Palin commented on the nuclear arms reduction treaty signed with Russia recently. The comments just show how completely out of touch she is with opinions on the nuclear arms stockpiles and even her own party's position.

Public opinion has always been in favour of reductions in the huge inventories. Experts and scientists have often been quoted in saying that nuclear arms reduction and safe disposal of the weapons will reduce the chances of terrorists getting their hands on weapons that may be in less secure countries.

So ole smarty pants Sarah decides to use her smarmy, folksy way of appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Speaking on Fox News earlier this week, Palin said the recently negotiated treaty with Russia - seeking a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons held by the two countries - is an "unbelievable" move and that "no administration in America's history I think would ever have considered such a step.*"

"It's kinda like getting out in the playground, a bunch of kids ready to fight, and one of the kids saying 'go ahead, punch me in the face, I am not going to retaliate, go ahead and do what you want to with me,'" Palin said.

* Oh really. You sure about that Sarah? Ever read any friggin history?

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2omYmK1jhQE[/YT]

Now the fun thing about this clip is, it shows that Rudy Giuliani is equally clueless. Both are desperate to find anything to get their names in the media spotlight. Maybe they should dress up like Lady Gaga and Elton John and go on the road together. Wouldn't they make a cute couple?

Lady Gaga and Sir Elton John after their performance at the 52nd Grammy Awards

---

Last edited by Peter Zack; 04-13-2010 at 06:23 AM.

Peter, this "deal" was not in the US's best interests. While we will stagnate our research Russia is updating their arsenal. The Big O was wrong on this "deal".

[jeffkrol]

Peter, this "deal" was not in the US's best interests. While we will stagnate our research Russia is updating their arsenal. The Big O was wrong on this "deal".

Still worried about bears sh!tting in your woods huh....

It is aimed to enhance the credibility and effectiveness of America’s capacity and will to deter against nuclear attacks. The review contained a clearly stated caveat that it can use nuclear weapons against countries that violate the nonproliferation treaty and that it reserves the right to provide nuclear deterrence in various ways. It also says the country will reinforce missile and advanced conventional arms to strengthen comprehensive deterrence ability. The change in U.S. nuclear posture therefore won’t likely weaken any deterrence against North Korea.
The U.S. has now gained moral leverage to lead the six-party talks on denuclearizing North Korea through its public pledge to reduce its dependence on the nuclear option. The campaign to reduce nuclear capacity and promote proliferation worldwide will likely hamper North Korea’s nuclear program.
The global efforts to secure nuclear material will also set the tone for the next six-party talks by drawing attention to dismantlement rather than nonproliferation. We must maintain close relations with the United States to secure nuclear deterrence against North Korea until it completely scraps its nuclear program. At the same time, we must play an active role in global platforms like the nuclear summit to contribute to the cementing of an international stand on nuclear security and the peaceful use of nuclear resources.

The writer is a professor of military studies at Korea National Defense University.
Translation by the JoongAng Daily staff.
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?

Still worried about bears sh!tting in your woods huh....

Not particularly. Just about you of the Jackass Party destroying what's left of the US and our security.

[jeffkrol]

Not particularly. Just about you of the Jackass Party destroying what's left of the US and our security.

It's easy to forget, but Ronald Reagan believed that nuclear weapons deserved to be abolished as soon as reasonably possible. To his mind, such weapons were "totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization." That's why he launched negotiations with the Soviet Union, reducing the likelihood of nuclear conflict and working toward the day when the world's deadliest weapons could become a relic of the past.

Of course, President Reagan realized that a nuclear free world was nowhere near the horizon. Instead of pie-in-the-sky delusions, his administration created a long-term framework for reducing the risk of nuclear war. A major piece of that framework was the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, known as START. The final treaty was signed by President George H.W. Bush and went into force under President Bill Clinton. At its birth, START helped ease Cold War tensions. When it expired in 2009, the U.S. and Russia had cut their nuclear arsenals by eighty percent.

Barack Obama has looked to replicate Ronald Reagan's vision of a nuclear free world, and his practical success in turning that vision into a reality. In April 2009, President Obama gave a major speech in Prague, promising American leadership in working toward a world free from nuclear weapons. His first order of business: concluding a "New START" treaty with Russia to achieve further reductions in unnecessary nuclear weapons..............While we face new threats abroad and polarized politics at home, the sight of a Democratic President carrying on the tradition of a Republican predecessor does more than protect US security. It goes a long way in proving that morning in America is far from over.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-cornell-du-houx/president-obama-and-presi_b_533866.html

Despite the expected hoopla about this so-called landmark agreement, the actual reductions are quite modest. President Obama had promised during the campaign quickly to come down to the lower limit of 1,700 warheads specified in the Moscow Treaty of 2002. So the negotiated level of 1,550 warheads represents only a further reduction of 150. ......To state, however, that we will only use nuclear weapons against nuclear-armed states does provide some psychological impediment to nuclear proliferation and does have unquestioned diplomatic advantages.........But, happily, the administration's nuclear posture has turned out to be far more reassuring than its rhetoric.

Mr. Schlesinger was secretary of defense from 1973 to 1975
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303828304575180532542378588.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124726489588925407.html
If we lose are security.. it will be internal.. NOT external... Lets face it, the world saw what we can do (including throwing out our entire constitution) for a horrific, yet in the terms of world mortality, small fraction of human casualties (lets leave the economic impact out for now) and few countries would be willing to face that. The ones that do "know better" and it's not worth it.....

[Peter Zack]

Peter, this "deal" was not in the US's best interests. While we will stagnate our research Russia is updating their arsenal. The Big O was wrong on this "deal".

Lets get real. Both countries still will have each have 1500 weapons left. That's more than 7 times per country to wipe out the planet. How 'updated' do these things need to be? It's a ballistic missile with a guidance system and a bomb. Well as long as those 3 parts work, they don't need to be brand spanking new. There's no reliable technology that can knock out a 10,000 MPH bullet even if it was built in 1970.

In fact just one nuke sub off the coast could wipe out a country the size of Russia or the US and when it's that close to your shore, you're not going to be able to do anything to react and stop it.

Reagan's vision was correct and someday maybe it will come true.


But my point of the thread wasn't about the reductions directly. It was how completely clueless SP is. I mean if your going to open your stupid mouth, then at least you could know what your favourite [and often quoted] president had to say on the subject and almost every president since him.

[Rupert]

Sarah is a good representative of the Tea Party crowd, and is in touch with their pathetic ignorance and reactionary fears of anything that smacks of reason or logic. This crowd is the bottom feeding class of America, spawning the radicals and murderers like Timothy McVeigh and the abortion Doctor killers along with a large group of knee jerking fools like George that feed on the faux news @FAUX News, never using their own tiny brains to look for reality.

There is no changing these types, they wallow in their ignorance and wear it as a badge of "patriotism" with great pride. They have been here since the beginning of time, always holding back the progress of humanity and relishing their own pathetic lives of misery and discontent. Yes, Sarah is perfect as their leader, the dead in spirit leading the dead in spirit, a perfect match.
Best Regards!

[causey]

The problem with deep ignorance (fundamental lack of understanding) is that it precludes any openness--which furthers one's taking in more of the same mere stupidity. And, yes, Palin is just the right kind of leader of deep ignorance.

Lets get real. Both countries still will have each have 1500 weapons left. That's more than 7 times per country to wipe out the planet. How 'updated' do these things need to be? It's a ballistic missile with a guidance system and a bomb. Well as long as those 3 parts work, they don't need to be brand spanking new. There's no reliable technology that can knock out a 10,000 MPH bullet even if it was built in 1970.

In fact just one nuke sub off the coast could wipe out a country the size of Russia or the US and when it's that close to your shore, you're not going to be able to do anything to react and stop it.

Reagan's vision was correct and someday maybe it will come true.


But my point of the thread wasn't about the reductions directly. It was how completely clueless SP is. I mean if your going to open your stupid mouth, then at least you could know what your favourite [and often quoted] president had to say on the subject and almost every president since him.

Then why is Russia updating their's?
Wasn't it Reagan that BUILT UP our nuclear arsenal?

Ronald Reagan came to the presidency as a long-time critic of arms control and detente with the Soviet Union, the preeminent U.S. strategic adversary during his eight years in office. Throughout the 1970s, Reagan had argued that the United States was falling behind the Soviets in the nuclear competition and that U.S. long-range ballistic missiles were becoming increasingly vulnerable to Soviet attack. During his 1980 election campaign against President Jimmy Carter, Reagan contended that the unratified Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II (SALT II) was “fatally flawed.” As president, Reagan accelerated strategic nuclear modernization plans and launched modern efforts to build a national missile defense system through his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), raising tensions with the Soviet Union and prompting widespread public concern about the possibility of war between world’s two major nuclear superpowers.

The only reason, or at least the main reason Russia agreed to much of it was that Gorby was afraid of what we had. Especially SDI.
You can't negotiate with someone if they are much stronger than you. You need to be on equal footing or damn close to it. Reagan understood. Obamarama doesn't.

[shooz]

We already updated ours.
So what's the problem?

We already updated ours.
So what's the problem?

We have? When? Last I heard our stuff was still from the 80's.

[lithos]

The only reason, or at least the main reason Russia agreed to much of it was that Gorby was afraid of what we had. Especially SDI.
You can't negotiate with someone if they are much stronger than you. You need to be on equal footing or damn close to it. Reagan understood. Obamarama doesn't.

True. Reagan was pretty much insect-fornication insane.

[GeneV]

George, please help me out. What updating is Russia allowed to do, that we cannot do?

[Ratmagiclady]

The problem with deep ignorance (fundamental lack of understanding) is that it precludes any openness--which furthers one's taking in more of the same mere stupidity. And, yes, Palin is just the right kind of leader of deep ignorance.

Just so. I think it's time for a break from this stuff for me.

[shooz]

We have? When? Last I heard our stuff was still from the 80's.

That's because you only believe what Murdock tells you.