Reducing Nuclear Threats

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from billings11. Show billings11's posts

    Reducing Nuclear Threats

    John McCain believes that we can build a safer world, one with fewer nuclear weapons and in which proliferation, instability, and nuclear terrorism are far less likely. To achieve this, John McCain outlined a series of initiatives that will enhance nuclear security and prevent proliferation. ��

    A Crisis That Has Been Building For Decades, The Global Spread Of Nuclear Weapons, Demands Action Now.� North Korea pursues a nuclear weapons program that has advanced to the point where Kim Jong-Il has tested a nuclear weapon, and almost certainly possesses several more nuclear warheads. North Korea has shared its nuclear and missile know-how with others, including Syria. Iran is marching with single-minded determination toward the same goal. Other nations are wondering whether they need to have such weapons. We could find ourselves in a world where a dozen or more nations have viable nuclear weapons programs.

    As President, John McCain Will Establish A Long-Term Commitment To A World Free Of Nuclear Weapons. Like President Reagan, John McCain believes we can see a day when nuclear weapons are banished from the Earth. While a distant and difficult goal, we must proceed toward it prudently and pragmatically, and with a focused concern on our security and our allies' security. The time has come to take further measures to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, and the U.S. must be a leader.


    John McCain's Highest Priority Will Be To Reduce The Danger Nuclear Weapons Will Ever Be Used. We must seek to do all we can to ensure that nuclear weapons will never again be used. While working closely with our allies, John McCain will ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to engage in a comprehensive review of all aspects of our nuclear strategy and policy. �

    At The Same Time, The U.S. Must Continue To Deploy A Safe And Reliable Nuclear Deterrent, Robust Missile Defense And Superior Conventional Forces. ��

    John McCain Supports Further Strategic Arms Reductions. John McCain will seek to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal to the lowest number possible consistent with our security requirements and global commitments, moving as rapidly as possible to a significantly smaller force.


    John McCain Will Work To Strengthen Existing International Treaties And Institutions To Combat Proliferation And Develop New Ones Where Necessary. The U.S. should move quickly to negotiate a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and improve the ability to interdict the spread of nuclear weapons and material under the Proliferation Security Initiative. John McCain will increase funding for American nonproliferation efforts, including the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs established by the landmark Nunn-Lugar legislation.

    To Prevent Countries From Using Civilian Nuclear Programs As A Cover For The Development Of Nuclear Weapons, John McCain Will Limit The Further Spread Of Enrichment And Reprocessing. John McCain supports international guarantees of nuclear fuel supply to countries that renounce enrichment and reprocessing.� He also supports establishing international nuclear enrichment centers and an international repository for spent nuclear fuel.
    Sign the pledge to build a world with fewer nuclear weapons: http://www.johnmccain.com/involving/petition.aspx?guid=46fc9952-ebb3-49ea-bdc7-6537fee1399f

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from lnmonster. Show lnmonster's posts

    Reducing Nuclear Threats

    This is simply cut-and-pasted from the John McCain web site, without attribution.

    It is comforting, however, to see McCain lurch to the left for the general election.  I hope he does so in other policy areas as well, and I hope he is sincere.

    By far the most dangerous element on the planet is securing fissile material from old Russian nuclear sites, a program which has been cut way back on by the current administration.  I don't see this addressed in McCain's blurb above, and I wish it were there.

    Would that the idealism expressed by McCain were simply naive, and not cynical, but a little voice in my head it telling me to fear the worst.  Reducing our nuclear stockpile from 10,000 to 1,000 (or whatever) doesn't make for a significantly safer world.  Would WE turn control of all of our nuclear fuel to some international organization, as he is assuming other countries will do?  Iran has be subject to internation sanctions already, would they REALLY trust an international body with their energy securty (assuming, tee hee, that they want, hah hah, nuclear capability for, hoo ho, domestic power production, not weapons).  And no world free of nuclear weapons is going to include Israel, sorry.

    Sad truth is that MAD works and will continue to work so long as nuclear weapons are solely in the hands of nation states, even rogue ones.  Missile defense undercuts MAD and forces the other side to escalate (it's also absurdly expensive).  Reducing arsenals and supporting missile defense are at cross purposes.

    And working against proliferations among nations is a worthy goal and should be pursued, but securing nuclear matarial HAS to be the highest priority.

    Just my $0.02.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from PS911fan. Show PS911fan's posts

    Reducing Nuclear Threats

    You know who has actually been working on the issue of dropping the nuke population .......Obama, with Richard Lugar. Of course this is one of those "non-accomplishments" Obama has been working on since his arrival to congress

    http://obama.senate.gov/press/070111-lugar-obama_non/

    Its kind of funny to see McCain move on this issue when all he really wants to do is use the nukes against Iran.

    the idea that Israel will give up their nuke program is also a joke.

    israel has been given so much freedom because of their "threatened status" but its going to take some effort to make this happen all over the world.

    How does McCain plan to do that without diplomacy?






    [Quote]

    This is simply cut-and-pasted from the John McCain web site, without attribution.
    Would that the idealism expressed by McCain were simply naive, and not cynical, but a little voice in my head it telling me to fear the worst.  Reducing our nuclear stockpile from 10,000 to 1,000 (or whatever) doesn't make for a significantly safer world.  Would WE turn control of all of our nuclear fuel to some international organization, as he is assuming other countries will do?  Iran has be subject to internation sanctions already, would they REALLY trust an international body with their energy securty (assuming, tee hee, that they want, hah hah, nuclear capability for, hoo ho, domestic power production, not weapons).  And no world free of nuclear weapons is going to include Israel, sorry.

    Sad truth is that MAD works and will continue to work so long as nuclear weapons are solely in the hands of nation states, even rogue ones.  Missile defense undercuts MAD and forces the other side to escalate (it's also absurdly expensive).  Reducing arsenals and supporting missile defense are at cross purposes.

    And working against proliferations among nations is a worthy goal and should be pursued, but securing nuclear matarial HAS to be the highest priority.

    Just my $0.02.[/Quote]
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Reducing Nuclear Threats

    [Quote]
     Missile defense undercuts MAD and forces the other side to escalate (it's also absurdly expensive).  Reducing arsenals and supporting missile defense are at cross purposes.


    Such bizarre thinking is incredible. The vast majority of Americans understandably want a missile defense system built , which would defend us against a nuclear attack. That is a core purpose of the government, to protect us against external threat. Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is literally mad, when we have the means to protect ourselves. Missile defense is just that- A DEFENSE-it is no threat and does not "force" the other side to escalate! Typical of liberals to be so concerned with the feelings of our enemies.  
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from lnmonster. Show lnmonster's posts

    Reducing Nuclear Threats

    Such bizarre thinking is incredible.

    To some people, ANY kind of thinking is incredible, so I accept your statement.


    The vast majority of Americans understandably want a missile defense system built, which would defend us against a nuclear attack.

    You made a grammatical error in this statement by putting a comma between "built" and "which".  Americans DO want to be protected against nuclear attack, but the comma suggests that a missile defense system will necessarily do so, which it almost certainly will not.


    Missile defense is just that- A DEFENSE-it is no threat and does not "force" the other side to escalate!

    Imagine that Iran had a fully functional and foolproof missile defense system that could take out 10,000 incoming ballistic warheads.  What would we do?  Why, we'd make sure we had 20,000 ballistic warheads, duh.  Curious that when it suits conservatives' purposes, they cite SDI as one reason the Soviet Union fell - they contend that the escallation required to counter the US missile defense system would have been so onerous to the Soviet economy that Gorbachev just threw in the towel.  Not that that had anything to do with reality, but it IS the conservative position that missile defense forces the other side to escalate.  Is you a conservative or ain't you?


    Typical of liberals to be so concerned with the feelings of our enemies.

    Typical of conservatives to be so unable to put themselves in another's shoes that they (a) fail to anticipate the responses of their enemies (example - Iraq), and (b) make lots of new enemies (example - Iraq).  I do not believe that all people with Asperger's syndrome are conservative, but it sure does seem like many of the conservatives on this board have a difficult time seeing the world from anyone's perspective but their own.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Reducing Nuclear Threats

    "Imagine that Iran had a fully functional and foolproof missile defense system that could take out 10,000 incoming ballistic warheads.  What would we do?  Why, we'd make sure we had 20,000 ballistic warheads, duh.  "

    No we wouldnt, if liberals had any say in the matter. It would be Bush's fault, and liberals would of course want to immediately appease and negotiate so that we would not "make Iran our enemy".

    The liberal response to missile defense shows clearly that they do not put the interests of the United States first. The real reason liberals oppose SDI is not because it would fail, but because it would succeed. Since liberals fear a powerful America.  Liberals' zeitgeist consists of more creative ways to weaken the US and appease powerful enemies of the US.                 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from lnmonster. Show lnmonster's posts

    Reducing Nuclear Threats

    The liberal response to missile defense shows clearly that they do not put the interests of the United States first. The real reason liberals oppose SDI is not because it would fail, but because it would succeed. Since liberals fear a powerful America.

    Bob, your profound inability to comprehend the liberal viewpoint supports my suspicion that you suffer from Asperger's, or some other mild autistic spectrum disorder.  Liberals love America at least as much as conservatives do, and have always taken necessary steps to keep America strong and safe (contrast that with the damage Iraq, secret CIA torture prisons, Guantanamo, etc. have done to the US prestige and security).

    Let me educate you, although I doubt you care to be educated.  Liberals are quite different from socialists, the latter being true believers of left-wing doctrine, just as conservatives are true believers of right-wing doctrine.  The liberal identifies pervasive problems that are not being solved by non-governmental forces and attempts to bring to bear governmental solutions, sometimes from left-wing doctrine (e.g., welfare), sometimes from right-wing (e.g., cap-and-trade for carbon emissions).  Sometimes they advocate deficit spending, sometimes they go for surplusses ... depends on the needs of the moment.  When things don't go as planned, they abandon their experiment (e.g., welfare) and try something new.

    Compare this to what either socialists or conservatives do.  When the last 5-year plan didn't work, socialists conclude that they need another 5-year plan, rather than that 5-year plans are stupid.  Likewise, when tax cuts increase deficits instead of decreasing them, conservatives blame it on the tax cuts being not big enough, rather than realize that the Laffer curve is a laugher.

    Bottom line is, of COURSE liberals would build 20,000 warheads if an enemy had a missile defense that could take out 10,000 of them.  Why?  Because it works ... that's how you defeat a missile defense system.  Please recall that our vast nuclear arsenal was mostly bloated to its enormous levels under Kennedy and Johnson, and the SALT and START talks began under Nixon and were conducted almost exclusively by Republican presidents.

    What is striking is that you don't seem to comprehend that if we had a missile defense system, other powers would do exactly as we would and increase the size of their arsenals.  That's why we had an ABM treaty with the USSR, to keep the size of our respective arsenals down, recognizing the utter futility of missile defense (it was signed by Nixon, by the way).  Your inability to see things from the viewpoint of others is the same kind of thing that got us into the mess we're in now in Iraq.  It should give you pause.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from PS911fan. Show PS911fan's posts

    Reducing Nuclear Threats



    If you saw 60 mins tonight, Ill bet that new weapon gets some support. McSame wont like it because people dont die .....but its a interesting deterrent if it can be shown to work in the field.....





    [Quote]The liberal response to missile defense shows clearly that they do not put the interests of the United States first. The real reason liberals oppose SDI is not because it would fail, but because it would succeed. Since liberals fear a powerful America.

    Bob, your profound inability to comprehend the liberal viewpoint supports my suspicion that you suffer from Asperger's, or some other mild autistic spectrum disorder.  Liberals love America at least as much as conservatives do, and have always taken necessary steps to keep America strong and safe (contrast that with the damage Iraq, secret CIA torture prisons, Guantanamo, etc. have done to the US prestige and security).

    Let me educate you, although I doubt you care to be educated.  Liberals are quite different from socialists, the latter being true believers of left-wing doctrine, just as conservatives are true believers of right-wing doctrine.  The liberal identifies pervasive problems that are not being solved by non-governmental forces and attempts to bring to bear governmental solutions, sometimes from left-wing doctrine (e.g., welfare), sometimes from right-wing (e.g., cap-and-trade for carbon emissions).  Sometimes they advocate deficit spending, sometimes they go for surplusses ... depends on the needs of the moment.  When things don't go as planned, they abandon their experiment (e.g., welfare) and try something new.

    Compare this to what either socialists or conservatives do.  When the last 5-year plan didn't work, socialists conclude that they need another 5-year plan, rather than that 5-year plans are stupid.  Likewise, when tax cuts increase deficits instead of decreasing them, conservatives blame it on the tax cuts being not big enough, rather than realize that the Laffer curve is a laugher.

    Bottom line is, of COURSE liberals would build 20,000 warheads if an enemy had a missile defense that could take out 10,000 of them.  Why?  Because it works ... that's how you defeat a missile defense system.  Please recall that our vast nuclear arsenal was mostly bloated to its enormous levels under Kennedy and Johnson, and the SALT and START talks began under Nixon and were conducted almost exclusively by Republican presidents.

    What is striking is that you don't seem to comprehend that if we had a missile defense system, other powers would do exactly as we would and increase the size of their arsenals.  That's why we had an ABM treaty with the USSR, to keep the size of our respective arsenals down, recognizing the utter futility of missile defense (it was signed by Nixon, by the way).  Your inability to see things from the viewpoint of others is the same kind of thing that got us into the mess we're in now in Iraq.  It should give you pause.
    [/Quote]
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Reducing Nuclear Threats

     "right-wing (e.g., cap-and-trade for carbon emissions).  Sometimes they advocate deficit spending, sometimes they go for surplusses ... depends on the needs of the moment.  When things don't go as planned, they abandon their experiment"

    Hard to know what to respond to, when you are wrong about everything.

    "Cap and trade for carbon emissions is not "right wing"... it is the usual liberal excuse to raise taxes, by buying into global warming hype. 
    So when things dont go as planned, liberals abandon their failed experiments? Wish it was so....the alphabet soup of useless federal agencies since the 1930s continues...Failed War on Poverty, which is an excuse to hire liberal bureaucrats, continues ..abject failure of liberalism can be seen in Northern cities like Boston and Detroit...liberals never learn, they just find another boondoggle and hire more relatives on the public payroll.... 

    "[liberals] have always taken necessary steps to keep America strong and safe (contrast that with the damage Iraq, secret CIA torture prisons, Guantanamo, etc. have done to the US prestige and security)."

    Bush's tough policies undeniably helped prevent another mass terror attack, and as usual since the Cold War, liberals didnt support this, but rather hindered our security.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from lnmonster. Show lnmonster's posts

    Reducing Nuclear Threats

    you are wrong about everything.

    My suspicion that you did not want to be educated was apparently correct.

    "Cap and trade for carbon emissions is not "right wing"... it is the usual liberal excuse to raise taxes, by buying into global warming hype.

    Direct regulation of emissions is left-wing.  Leaving it to market forces through cap-and-trade is the approach preferred by Republicans since George H.W. Bush introduced it for sulfur emissions in 1990.  George W. Bush relied heavily on it for his Clear Skies Initiative in 2002.  Your ignorance is breathtaking.

    But that's not altogether surprising if you think global warming is only hype.  It is, in fact, so real that there really isn't much, in my opinion, that we can do to stop it.  I therefore don't support any governmental or intergovernmental action to try to control carbon emissions ... being a liberal, I have no interest in any proposed solution I don't view as having a realistic chance of working.
     
    Bush's tough policies undeniably helped prevent another mass terror attack

    I deny it.  There were no mass terror attacks on the US homeland in the years prior to 9/11, the only reason they caught us with our pants down in 2001 was that Bush wasn't paying attention yet ... same as with the first WTC attack very early in the Clinton adminsitration.  Once Clinton started paying attention, there were no more attacks.

    But if you deny global warming, there's probably no end of other realities you'll deny.  Ta ta.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Reducing Nuclear Threats

     "But if you deny global warming, there's probably no end of other realities you'll deny.  Ta ta."

    Reality is that Democratic liberals have lost 7 of the past 10Presidential elections. Despite Bush fatigue, still looking like it will be 8 of 11, largely because of the failure of liberals to convince the public they are serious about national security issues.

     

Share