Obama wants to cut the military but increase Nuclear abilities

KimberlyD

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
370
Reaction score
47
Country
USA
Location
USA
We also need to start dumping more money into our educational system as well as creating new jobs. That will help to get us back on a our financial feet again.
 

edustadar001

NEW RECRUIT
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
6
Reaction score
3
Country
Yugoslavia
Location
Austria
Now this is what I find ironic about America. Wasn't it against nuclear proliferation some decades ago? I see the tides have changed and they're back in the game. Perhaps thanks to ISIS, Russia and those elements creating a ruckus in various parts of the world. Well personally I see no problem with that. If nuclear is the answer to eliminating the existence of terrorists and racial fanatics. My only concern is that you can't control nuclear weapons once they blow up. They'll erase everything in their way. Obama has to think of a better plan where innocent lives won't be sacrificed meaninglessly.
I absolutely agree with you, it is really ironic. This means that the USA only wants to decrease the amount of nuclear weapons if they will still be the undisputed world leader, but if other countries produce weapons the USA are getting immediately in "danger". And the media is telling to us every day again and again that the USA wants only to keep the world safe. The really strange thing is that the most people in the western European countries are believing in that.
 

KimberlyD

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
370
Reaction score
47
Country
USA
Location
USA
You have to remember though.... the US is not the only country with this mentality and they are not the only ones with a large arsenal. There are 3 major countries... the US, UK, and Russia. My personal feelings on this is that I like the idea of only the three of us having a large arsenal.... it has already been proven time and time again that many of the other countries having it could be fatal. Can you image (or would you even want to) Africa, China, or God forbid Iraq having an increase in theirs. I don't want to even think on that..... Now as for the US wanting this??? Think on the statement.... OBAMA wants it. Obama is not the US. Obama maybe our President for the time being, but he does not speak for the entire US. If you watch our politics you will notice that a large portion of the US is against Obama and his "desires" unfortunately at the moment, his supporters have more money then those against him AND there are just enough of them on his side to keep him in office. One more year and he is gone. I just hope we have better choices this coming election. Obama has been the lesser of two evils all this time, we need better choices. I wonder if the rest of the US remember that they don't actually have to vote on the choices on the ballot? If they get enough support they can stall the election and put different candidates on the ballot?
 

Shimus

MEMBER
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
75
Reaction score
11
Country
USA
Location
USA
They know, but they're too afraid to do anything about it. The military and "Big Brother" is really that - Big. Huge. Vast to fight against with the normal human rights and reasoning, they have firepower and militarized units. They're simply too scared to say anything about it. So they just get spoonfed more problems that don't deal with them and choke them down.
 

edustadar001

NEW RECRUIT
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
6
Reaction score
3
Country
Yugoslavia
Location
Austria
You have to remember though.... the US is not the only country with this mentality and they are not the only ones with a large arsenal. There are 3 major countries... the US, UK, and Russia. My personal feelings on this is that I like the idea of only the three of us having a large arsenal.... it has already been proven time and time again that many of the other countries having it could be fatal. Can you image (or would you even want to) Africa, China, or God forbid Iraq having an increase in theirs. I don't want to even think on that..... Now as for the US wanting this??? Think on the statement.... OBAMA wants it. Obama is not the US. Obama maybe our President for the time being, but he does not speak for the entire US. If you watch our politics you will notice that a large portion of the US is against Obama and his "desires" unfortunately at the moment, his supporters have more money then those against him AND there are just enough of them on his side to keep him in office. One more year and he is gone. I just hope we have better choices this coming election. Obama has been the lesser of two evils all this time, we need better choices. I wonder if the rest of the US remember that they don't actually have to vote on the choices on the ballot? If they get enough support they can stall the election and put different candidates on the ballot?
Regarding your last sentence about another choice than the two given president candidates, I would say that this will not happen soon. It would be nice and the rest of the world is following the elections every time they occur, but to say the truth nobody believes in such a scenario. Maybe the Americans do not trust “unknown” candidates or they have not enough media an money behind them.
 

Shimus

MEMBER
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
75
Reaction score
11
Country
USA
Location
USA
It's true. Money and media is not only a propaganda tool, it's used effectively in each Presidential Election, ever held, ANYWHERE. This is not limited to region; this has been time tested and true. Not many countries bid on a complete unknown let alone America. People are sketched out by the unknown; it IS known.

Now for the OP, I believe if the people were to write as a nation to him to tell him not to keep up, it's probably not even his idea to do this to begin with - the race. That would be conceited to the think THE PRESIDENT has say in it. Lol. He's more a figurehead, I bet the joint-chiefs-of-staff are pushing it on him, breathing down his neck. He didn't seem openly receptive to it. Some behind doors was accomplished there, don't tell me there wasn't. I won't believe ya! >@<
 

Benoit W

NEW RECRUIT
Joined
Mar 10, 2016
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
Ассоrding tо а nеw аnаlysis оf nuсlеаr sесurity sреnding by а biраrtisаn grоuр аt Hаrvаrd’s Kеnnеdy Sсhооl оf Gоvеrnmеnt, thе аdministrаtiоn in its 2015 budgеt сhоsе tо сut nuсlеаr nоnрrоlifеrаtiоn рrоgrаms in thе Еnеrgy Dераrtmеnt by $399 milliоn whilе inсrеаsing sреnding оn nuсlеаr wеароns by $534 milliоn.
 

joshposh

MEMBER
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
187
Reaction score
47
Country
USA
Location
Philippines
The USA has the largest military in the world. From my understanding we dwarf the second largest army by a huge margin. From a business stand point it is cheaper to build up WMP then it is to send out million of US military personnel to parts unknown around the world. That's you hear about from Republican that we need to build up our military, when it's a garbage.
 

remnant

MEMBER
Joined
Feb 21, 2016
Messages
160
Reaction score
8
Country
Kenya
Location
Kenya
The fact that Obama wants to but back on conventional military capabilities is a bit of a dichotomy because on one hand, America's national defence is no longer dependent on conventional threats at its doorstep. But these capabilities are needed elsewhere to project its military might. On the other hand, the threat of nuclear war is more in people's collective psychology compared to the present and real danger posed by homegrown radical jihadists.
 

explorerx7

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 17, 2016
Messages
220
Reaction score
36
Country
Jamaica
Location
Jamaica
Nothing wrong with this move. Why should The enemy engage in a prolonged combat when its's much easier to just nuke and be done with it, remember it was the nuking of Japan that brought about their surrender during World War 11. One must realise that the war engagement landscape has changed. Many US citizens believe that to just send in the hum vs with all the gadgets makes them invincible. I was watching a clip on US combat mission in Iraq where a there was a strike on a hum v and the vehicle was cut in half and some of the crew killed. The strike seemed to come one of those planted devices set by the insurgents. Wars are not mainly fought by conventional means anymore like as in past, wars are now being fought by means of dirty tactics.
 

vash

MEMBER
Joined
Feb 19, 2015
Messages
189
Reaction score
27
Country
USA
Location
USA
In this age, nuclear weapons are for deterring the enemies from even making a move. So it is actually for defense purpose, and it is really good at it. While conventional weapons are for attacking. So I guess the move is to change the military to a more defensive type, or at least have no plan to do any conventional warfare any time soon. Then again, increase nuclear ability might just to make sure there is enough credible counter attack capability (or first strike for that matter) in case of a nuclear war.
 

Similar threads

Top