Apr 9, 2010

Guess the nuclear arms quote

It’s time to play guess the quote.

Who said this:

“There is only one way safely and legitimately to reduce the cost of national security, and that is to reduce the need for it. And this we are trying to do in negotiations with the Soviet Union. We are not just discussing limits on a further increase of nuclear weapons. We seek, instead, to reduce their number. We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.”

A) A bleeding heart, peacenik liberal?
B) Conservative saint Ronald Reagan in his Second Inaugural Address on January 21, 1985?
C) President Obama on the occasion of signing then biggest nuclear arms pact in a generation?

Surprisingly, the answer is B, and not C where President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday signed the first nuclear arms pact of its kind in two decades, but the answer is conservative saint Ronald Reagan. The pact signed Thursday will shrink the limit of nuclear warheads to 1,550 per country over seven years, but the good news is that it still allows for mutual destruction several times over.

So, it’s rather surprising that the President is being criticized for reaching the historic pact by conservatives from bloggers to the rightwing think tank the Heritage Foundation. One thing I have learned over the past year is that if President Obama brought about world peace, ended world hunger, helped find a cure for cancer and put a man on Mars Republicans would still find something to criticize him for.
One Michigan blogger is bemoaning the fact that this treaty reduces the ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) fleet. The treaty limits missile forces to 800 deployed and non-deployed intercontinental ballistic missile launchers, submarine launched ballistic missile launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear weapons.

It has been 10 years since I retired from the Navy, but I’m surprised they still have SSBNs. They are a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars.

The submarine’s only mission is to hide and launch its nuclear missiles when the end of the world is signaled. The submarine only surfaces long to replenish stores and change crews. It has a gold crew and blue crew that rotate every three months, but the sub is always deployed. I don’t know how much it cists to keep one deployed, but I know it’s not cheap.. How many times do we need to destroy the world?

The nine countries in the nuclear club that have nuclear weapons will, hopefully, never use them because of the mutual destruction concept, but a terrorist with a nuclear weapon will not hesitate to use it. That’s where our focus should be, and the more nuclear weapons there are, the higher the chance they will get their hands on one.


Johnny C said...

Republicans don't let little things like hypocrisy get in the way of a good talking point or a pointless attack on a target.

marry said...

Blogs are so informative where we get lots of information on any topic. Nice job keep it up!!

Teaching Dissertation

Chris Savage said...

I got an email from Tim Walberg yesterday, the GOPosaur who will likely be running against Mark Schauer that said, in part, this:

President Obama's Unprecedented Nuclear Stance Weakens Our Security

The president announced a new doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons, which according to Reuters news service, "the United States for the first time is forswearing use of atomic weapons against non-nuclear countries." The article added, "those countries would be spared a U.S. nuclear response only if they are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

I believe it's very dangerous for the United States to place limits on our response to an attack against our nation. As stated by Charles Krauthammer, if a country attacks us with biological or chemical weapons and "if it [has] kept up with the IAEA inspections, it gets immunity from the massive nuclear retaliation ... this to me is either insane or ridiculous. I can't decide."

We live in a dangerous world and it makes no sense to alert our enemies that they have no need to fear the use of certain strategic weapons. America needs to stand firmly with our democratic allies like Israel and avoid showing any weakness to terrorist countries. President Reagan showed us that peace through strength is the only effective path to follow in a truly uncertain world.
Seriously. The guy has the ignorant chutzpah to invoke Ronald Reagan in SUPPORT of a nuclear weapons build-up. Aye, aye, aye...

Communications guru said...

Anyone using that, “if a country attacks us with biological or chemical weapons” is either
stupid or a liar. The fact is the treaty is off if we are attacked with a biological or chemical

smartalek said...

"Anyone using that, 'if a country attacks us with biological or chemical weapons' is either
stupid or a liar

And as we know, every Publican now in national office has repeatedly and irrefutably demonstrated that they're both.