Obama has been doing a lot stuff lately to try reduce nuclear weapons in general... but I think what he's doing is essentially weakening the USA's defenses. He's signing all these treaties and reducing our nuclear weapons, but not everyone is going to follow our lead. Countries have spent millions or billions of dollars on research and developments on nuclear and biological warfare and i don't think they're planning on stopping anytime soon. Even he says that if any terrorist groups get their hands on any nuclear or biological weapons, he expects that they'll use them. I won't be surprised if some terrorist groups have already obtained nuclear or biological weapons. So why is he reducing our own means of retaliation?
If you agree, if you disagree, please comment. I want to know your opinions on this serious issue.

Nuclear warfare seems a thing of the past so I don't think it will make much of a difference. Biological warfare could do lot more damage and it can also be a lot more discrete. USA's government is purely focused on new technologies for warfare these days.

The whole nuke / weapons of mass destruction thing has run it's course it's just another political tactic to make the american people feel like they are safer or change their mind on obama.

What is the whole point of disabling our nukes when the "terrorists" have them or can get them? It's like cops dropping down their guns and allowing the enemy to kill them unarmed. Just pointless... Just as pointless as us searching for imaginary "weapons of mass destruction" when bush was in office

I agree with JigSaw. Technology is advancing so nuclear weapons are not new in technology and besides there are new weapons being developed. So why use nukes when there are newer weapons to use.

Well, if terrorists had them though, they'd still use them, why wouldn't they?

USA with weak defenses. lol never. we could sign a million of papers doesnt mean we dont have something that will wipe your country of the face of the earth. do some looking up on the h.a.r.p. project. we dont need no stinking nukes.

yeah yeah yeah i understand that, but i hate how we have to back down with those and how he expects others to follow and barely anyone probably will due to the fact that they've spent so much money on stuff like that

true, but do you think we are going to just git rid of our nukes?
its just a publicity move.

yeah i guess you're right about that hahaha

Well, the USA not having nukes makes no difference in whether or not a nuke will kill people. If people are going to nuke the US, it doesn't matter too much whether or not they'll get nuked in return. They'll have prepared for that and stay on the move if they're a terrorist group, and if we can't find the terrorist groups now, why would our chances improve after America gets nuked?

Perhaps the reduction in nukes means that another weapon has been discovered that is more easily assembled and is more destructive. They have hydrogen bombs that work by fusion instead of fission, like nuclear bombs, and during the test explosion the island it exploded on is no longer there, and the ships that were 5 miles away from the island had the bulletproof glass on board shatter. They have to ignite a bus full of hydrogen by detonating a nuclear bomb inside, but if they found a more portable and easily deployable way to launch these weapons, the results could be devastating.

Originally posted by BTowns

---

Well, the USA not having nukes makes no difference in whether or not a nuke will kill people. If people are going to nuke the US, it doesn't matter too much whether or not they'll get nuked in return. They'll have prepared for that and stay on the move if they're a terrorist group, and if we can't find the terrorist groups now, why would our chances improve after America gets nuked?

Perhaps the reduction in nukes means that another weapon has been discovered that is more easily assembled and is more destructive. They have hydrogen bombs that work by fusion instead of fission, like nuclear bombs, and during the test explosion the island it exploded on is no longer there, and the ships that were 5 miles away from the island had the bulletproof glass on board shatter. They have to ignite a bus full of hydrogen by detonating a nuclear bomb inside, but if they found a more portable and easily deployable way to launch these weapons, the results could be devastating.

---

I thought they've already had hydrogen bombs for sometime now... oh well, you've got a point i guess. But then i'll be mad at the fact at how there's so many new weapons that we can't defend ourselves from hahaha

Originally posted by mdynasty926

---

Originally posted by BTowns

---

Well, the USA not having nukes makes no difference in whether or not a nuke will kill people. If people are going to nuke the US, it doesn't matter too much whether or not they'll get nuked in return. They'll have prepared for that and stay on the move if they're a terrorist group, and if we can't find the terrorist groups now, why would our chances improve after America gets nuked?

Perhaps the reduction in nukes means that another weapon has been discovered that is more easily assembled and is more destructive. They have hydrogen bombs that work by fusion instead of fission, like nuclear bombs, and during the test explosion the island it exploded on is no longer there, and the ships that were 5 miles away from the island had the bulletproof glass on board shatter. They have to ignite a bus full of hydrogen by detonating a nuclear bomb inside, but if they found a more portable and easily deployable way to launch these weapons, the results could be devastating.

---

I thought they've already had hydrogen bombs for sometime now... oh well, you've got a point i guess. But then i'll be mad at the fact at how there's so many new weapons that we can't defend ourselves from hahaha

---

They have had them for some time now, but I was only giving an example of a weapon more devastating than a nuke, saying that nukes aren't the biggest threat and not what we should be concerned about.

Think of it this way. You drop a nuke. There is a huge mushroom cloud, thousands of people die, and anyone can point a finger at the US and say "They did it!" and there is no way we can deny it. Biological warfare, on the other hand, is a lot harder to notice. You can't tell if the epidemic that your country has is caused by bacteria or outside sources.
I think Obama is a bit to naive or arrogant on this subject, I can't tell which one. He just believes that terrorists promise that they won't blow us up, so he decides to promise that we won't either. The one problem is, we can't break our word; the US has a lot more at stake with places such as the UN. However, any other terrorist organization can still blow us up or attack us, and we would be unable to retaliate (for instance, we promise country X never to attack them, no matter what Terrorism group B does. Terrorism Group A, based in Country X, then attacks us, and we are helpless and can't do anything about it. Ouch, much?

First, I believe a fusion bomb wou;ld still be considered nuclear.

Second, even if it isn't considered a nuclear weapon, I don't believe this is why Obama wants to reduce our arsenal. I don't trust him. He doesn't want us to interrogate suspected or confirmed terrorists, is actively destroying our reputation with allied nations, sucking up to our enemies, knowingly running us into the ground with debt, leaking sensitive national security information, and removing many countries as targets for nuclear retaliation. I have no reason to trust him with our safety or well being.

Lagslayer : Exactly!
And yeah, I definitely agree that actually fusion bombs are nukes XD

Lagslayer : He wants to interogate them, just not torture them. Guess hes not as much of a nazi as fox news says he is. What a let down.

I highly believe that reducing our nuclear stockpile is very dangerous in times like these. Especially since nations who don't care about human rights are trying to build up theirs.