Insanity! Is Barack Obama Going To Unilaterally Slash The Size Of The U.S. Nuclear Arsenal By Another 80 Percent?

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

Barack Obama wants to disarm America.  There simply is no other way to explain his reckless behavior.  On Tuesday it came out that the Obama administration is considering plans to unilaterally slash the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal by up to 80 percent.  From a military standpoint, this is utter insanity.  Early in his presidency, Barack Obama signed a treaty with Russia that restricts both nations to a maximum of 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads.  But now Obama wants to cut the size of the U.S. arsenal down to as low as 300, without requiring the Russians to do anything.  In addition, we don’t even have a treaty with the Chinese, and we have no idea how many deployed nuclear warheads they have.  For all we know, it could be in the thousands.  Unfortunately, very few people are speaking up about this.  Most Americans just assume that we have such a massive nuclear arsenal that nobody would ever dare to mess with us.  Well, that was true back in the 1980s, but that is not true today.  If Barack Obama does unilaterally slash the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal by 80 percent, that would make another world war much more likely.  If we are sitting there with far fewer nukes than Russia and China have, they will not fear us nearly as much.


But we should have all seen this coming.  Back in 2009, Obama made a famous speech in Prague in which he pledged to work toward a world without nuclear weapons.

Well, it looks like he plans to start by getting rid of almost all of America’s nuclear weapons.

A few years ago, Obama demanded that the Pentagon conduct a “radical review” of the U.S. nuclear weapons program.  When the results came back, Obama rejected them as being “too timid”.

Obama is not just intent on trimming the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

The truth is that he wants to gut it.

Currently,the Pentagon is working on a new plan for the reduction of the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.  The following is from a USA Today article put out on Tuesday about this plan….

AP, citing “a former U.S. official and a congressional official,” says the administration is debating at least three options to bring the U.S. stockpile down to somewhere between 1,100 and 300. The current treaty allows 1,550.

So what are the “three options” going to be?

The three options are detailed in an article in the Houston Chronicle….

No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to: 1,000 to 1,100; 700 to 800, and 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.

At this point, the plan has not been presented to Obama yet.

But needless to say, he will probably want the biggest cuts possible.

Unfortunately, the truth is that the U.S. nuclear arsenal has already been cut far too much.  There is no way that a few hundred nuclear warheads can be an effective deterrent in the 21st century.

Retired Air Force Lt. General Thomas McInerney shared his opinion of this plan with the Washington Free Beacon….

“No sane military leader would condone 300 to 400 warheads for an effective nuclear deterrent strategy”

But Barack Obama is not a “sane military leader”.  What Barack Obama wants to do is to unilaterally disarm America.

According to CNN, the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal reached a peak of “more than 31,255 in 1967”.

The Obama administration has already taken us down to a very small fraction of that.  If the Obama administration takes us down to a level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear warheads, we would basically be committing strategic suicide.

To get an idea of just how dramatically the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal has declined over the years, just check out this chart.

Basically, thanks to Obama we could end up with less than 1 percent of the nuclear warheads that we had during the peak of the Cold War.

Less than one percent.

And if we gut our strategic nuclear arsenal, that will make it much, much more likely that someone will use nuclear weapons against us in the future.

The reason why no other nation has openly attacked the United States since World War II is because they all knew that if anyone attacked us we would nuke them into oblivion.

But if the U.S. only has 300 warheads, and if an enemy thinks that they can hit most of them in a first strike, the entire calculation changes.

Today, the world is becoming increasingly unstable.  North Korea has nuclear weapons, Iran is developing a nuclear program and even Venezuela is rumored to be interested in acquiring nukes.  It would be a really bad idea to unilaterally disarm right now.

But the most significant threats are Russia and China.  If World War III were to erupt, it is quite possible that the U.S. could find itself facing a very formidable Russian/Chinese alliance.

The only advantage that the U.S. would have over such an alliance would be in strategic weaponry.  The combined conventional forces of Russia and China would vastly outnumber our own.

So why are we disarming?

And there is another factor to consider as well.  As I have written about previously, the START Treaty did absolutely nothing to address the overwhelming superiority that Russia has in tactical nuclear weapons….

The treaty completely ignores the very serious imbalance that exists between the U.S. and Russia when is comes to tactical nuclear weapons.  Today it is estimated that the Russians have approximately 10,000 tactical nuclear warheads while the U.S. only has a few hundred.  These tactical nuclear warheads can be delivered by cruise missiles, long-range artillery or aircraft.  The treaty does nothing to change those numbers.  This would put the United States at a very serious strategic disadvantage.

Why in the world would we allow ourselves to be put in such an unfair position?

Are we fools?

As Russia’s economic fortunes have turned around, they have been busy spending money on updating and modernizing their strategic nuclear forces.

The United States has not been doing the same thing.

While the U.S. is busy chasing goat herders around in Afghanistan, Russia is busy preparing for the next war.

During his speech to formally launch his campaign to reclaim the Russian presidency, Vladimir Putin made the following statement….

“In the next five to 10 years we must take our armed forces to a qualitatively new level. Of course, this will require big spending …. but we must do this if we want to defend the dignity of our country”

Russia is preparing for World War III and so is China.  They both recognize that someday there is a very good chance that they will have to take on the United States.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is gutting the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal and is acting like there is no chance that there will ever be a world war ever again.

Sadly, most Americans have bought into the propaganda that the threat of world war is permanently gone and that we don’t even need nukes anymore.

Most people out there simply will not understand why I am making such a big fuss in this article.

But someday all of this will likely become very clear.

Someday America will likely bitterly regret the decisions that the Obama administration is now making.

When Russian and Chinese missiles are raining down on American cities it will be too late to do something about it then.

Please wake up America.

  • BenjiK

    Just another instance of the BO administration “humbling” America at the feet of our enemies. I don’t think most people realize on how much different the rest of the world really is. We constantly hear about “peace talks” and sanctions concerning the middle east, but the truth is the leaders of those countries DO NOT and WILL NOT share our idealism. They don’t want peace, they don’t want compromise, they want to hurt us, plain and simple. I really do wish BO’s idea of the world to hold hands and sing Kumbaya under a rainbow of peace was attainable, but it is not.

    Our enemies don’t think, feel or live the way we do. Our enemies DO NOT WANT TO BE OUR FRIENDS. This is common sense, but all too often ignored. Also, America’s ability to “buy” international peace through “foreign aid” is soon coming to an end. I think our government realizes this, hence the current disarming of our military to show appeasement. This also shows how uncertain our economy is when 3rd world countries no longer want our money. The U.S. and it’s succession of leaders has remained the world’s leading super-power because we were always A)Feared or B)Respected. Unfortunately, we are now neither.

    Ok, I’ll wrap it now before I end up on a “list”….. :)

    • mondobeyondo

      The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and if my friend is a banker, he/she will be my BFF!

      • BenjiK

        Isn’t that the truth! I always enjoy your comments Mondo. :)

  • r.bitting

    ” For the Day of the Lord is coming, for it is at hand. A day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness, like the morning clouds spread over the mountains. A people come, great and strong, the likes of which has never been, Nor will there be any such after them ( BTW, compare that last verse with Daniel ch. 12:1 ) even for many successive generations. A fire devours before them, and behind them a flame burns; The Land is like the Garden of Eden before them, And behind them a desolate wilderness” Joel 2:1-3. ( The Garden of Eden reference can also be found in Ezekiel 36:34, which refers to the Nation of Israel returning to the land in 1948 after WWII, and ch. 36 ties directly into ch. 38-39, which is the Gog-Magog War of the latter years ).

  • BenjiK

    As of 9:00pm central time the only major news agency that is running any coverage of this is Fox. I checked ABC News, CNN, HuffPo and MSNBC. Even Fox’s article was a sub-headline. This would have made the front page of every major newspaper internationally 20 years ago. It only goes to show that by the time the “sheeple” learn of a national catastrophic event it will be too late.

    • AJ77

      Something smells fishy.

      The admin is supposedly lessening nuke weapons yet at the same time spending billions more for more nuclear energy plants which supposedly make bomb-making materials ?

      Maybe it’s all just media spin to make Russia believe the U.S. is really lessening it’s nuke arsenal, because other actions contradict this.

      Gotta step back and look at ALL of the news anymore to see how they relate to a story.

      Look at the macro, not the micro from now on.

      • AJ77

        OR…on the other hand, maybe “they” invented a new weapon so don’t need the arsenal anymore ?

      • BenjiK

        I agree. There isn’t much that the MSM reports on anymore that passes the “smell test”.

  • A Dodgy Bloke

    Disarming yourself can only be justified in the deluded, fantasy world of the idealistic leftist. If you look at BHO policies he really believe if you can have a western style democracy in North Africa. He really believes you can run up the deficit forever despite the ample evidence every Nation has an economic breaking point. He believes we can have a European style welfare state despite the ample evidence the welfare state is killing Europe. Why is it such a stretch to believe he can gut the nuclear deterrent and believe Russia, China, North Korea and soon Iran will not take advantage of it? He believes good intentions are enough if he shows good intentions everybody else will follow.

  • Thomas Armstrong

    This Article MUST hit the main stream press. Obama is purposely ruining our country and our ability to keep the peace. Obama must be stopped. Send this article to everyone on your mailing list!

    • Michael


      Hopefully there are a lot more people like you who understand how important this issue is.

      Unfortunately I don’t think that there are.




        1. Collapsed Economy

        2. Worthless Currency

        3. Brutal Police State

        4. Massive Poverty, Misery and Starvation

        5. Increased Homelessness

        And you think having 8,000 plus nukes will make a difference after all of the above happens why?




        Spreading fear again? The wild, unsubstantiated notion that reducing nuclear capacity will automatically mean that amerika gets conquered tomorrow is grossly irresponsible. If amerika’s stated position is that Iran can have no nukes then surely it can reduce its own stock by a few thousand………One thousand nukes ready to launch in 20 minutes or less is more than enough of an arsenal for defensive purposes.

        • Michael

          I concur with that. The argument being made is unsophisticated and technically and politically in error in several ways.

          • REED RICHARDS


            Is there any real intelligent thought behind your articles or are you simply on neo-con autopilot who throws anything against the wall waiting to see what sticks?

        • Gay Veteran

          amen Reed! I am sick and tired of right-wing cowards. 300 nukes is more than enough to destroy the world.

          Does anyone really think that Russia or China have the capacity to destroy our missles, subs and bombers?!?!?!? We spend more on “defense” than the rest of the world combined.

          I like Michael, but on this one he is waaaaaay out in right field.

        • Guido

          CAN WE TONE DOWN ON THE ALL CAPS IN COMMENTS, REED!!!!!!!!!??????????
          It really does get tedious when reading.

          I don’t think 300 is sufficient. 300 in a perfect world may be sufficient to destroy a lot, but you leave out the issue of possible first strike losses. By having a lot of weapons in numerous places, including silos, subs, in the sky, and other locations you can force your prospective foe to take into account the likelihood they will fail to knock out enough of your force to prevent retaliation.

          At the same time, I don’t think any nation is actively planning to nuke us. There’s no reason to. Zerohedge ran an article last week that postulated even Iran isn’t the threat we’re told they are. Iran doesn’t need nuclear weapons if they can convince us they have them. Once we believe they have them, they’ll get treated like North Korea-with some respect as armed crazies.

          I’m more curious to know why this is an issue all of the sudden? What burning need was there to address this concern right now? And why are you so up in arms in support of it? Was I unaware of something? Were you already agitating for this, or what? It seems funny that a guy who hopes to be reelected this year would come up with this stupid plan. It won’t appeal to any but the most extreme leftists. And I doubt they can actually put it into effect for years to come. You can’t just turn them off, they have to be carefully disassembled and destroyed. I have no idea what the time frame is, but it will take a lot longer than Barry’s remaining months. I have no doubt that his republican replacement will immediately put a halt to this stupid plan if it actually goes forward. It makes me wonder if he’s just trying to carry out his Trash America plan while he still has time.

          I also wonder what other stuff is floating past us while we’re all arguing about this non-issue? This administration has a history of pushing out so many wacky extremist trial balloons at the same time that no one can remain 100% pissed at all times.

          • Guido

            Plus, I don’t think anyone needs to know even a close approximation of what we have. I would be just as happy if people thought we were cutting down to 300 while increasing to 5,000. And let’s make up some really good ones, too, like the neutron bomb. That’s a bomb whose time has come.

    • If he is re-elected in 2012, which I believe he will, say goodbye to the USA because we won’t last beyond 2017. With Romney, who is one in the same, we’ll at least last until 2018.

      As Michael Save has put it: Don’t people understand that at a certain point their life is in danger by a lunatic president?

  • Ken

    Who can anyone in their right mind think another world war is not possible?


      Ken, Tatiana, mondobeyondo,


      Put away the wild, childish hysterics. Amerika has more than enough nuclear warheads to destroy the entire planet ten times over and make the rubble shake like rocks afterwards. There are far too many nuclear warheads lurking around and I think that having 1,000 of these things that can be launched at a moment’s notice is enough for any country…………..

      • Gay Veteran

        Reed, you are wasting your time. These are the same kind of people who believed that Iraq (and now Iran) actually pose a threat to America. Totally delusional

  • Tatiana Covington

    Let’s just put it this way. What else do you expect?

  • mondobeyondo


    What will the Department of Defense have left to defend itself?

  • whens dinner?

    I would just like to say 2 things:

    1) There is enough nuclear power in the world to kill every human in less than 1 minute.

    B) Over 90% of the smartest scientist and engineers that have ever lived. Live today

  • Eisenkreutz

    If I were president, I would end the overseas military bases, stop all foreign intervention, drasticly increase our nuclear armaments, and colonize Iraq to gain control of the $15 trillion in oil reserves they have to stabilize the fluctuation of gas prices and reduce our OPEC purchases.

  • Davey

    I think this is a great idea. Considering America is the only murderous country who has used nukes, this can only help save lives.
    Check out a doco called “Iran is not the enemy”.
    It details the absolute hypocrisy of your doomed nation.

    • Guido

      That comment is bullcrap on a stick. America isn’t murderous for dropping the atomic bomb to end a war that had lasted half a decade and spanned the entire planet. You wouldn’t spout that kind of rubbish if you actually knew anything about the issue.

      I’ve personally met one of the weaponeers of the atomic bomb from WWII, Leon King. He was a plank owner in the Manhattan Project and he dropped the test bomb on Bikini Atoll. He had no illusions about what those 2 bombs did for the US. They saved what were estimated to be 1,000,000 casualties. The planners on Tinian in August 1945 were estimating we would lose over 1,000 men AN HOUR in the assault on Japan. They were already preparing the ships and assembling the troops there when he was there prepping the bombs and the planes for the eventual atomic bomb mission.

      My father, who was about 15 at the time, was firmly convinced he would grow up and go off to fight in the war, himself. When I mentioned that to the man, he told me in no uncertain terms, “He woulda’ been dead.”

      In case you have any doubts about the willingness of the Japanese to withstand incredible, unimaginable, hopeless odds in their battle, and the Kamikazes don’t move you, then consider the many Japanese soldiers who held out to present day in the Pacific islands. Years after the war was officially over, they were still fighting in the Philippines and elsewhere. When the US entered Japan at the end, they found massive caves with the few remaining aircraft and enough weapons and ammo to arm every man, woman, and child. They weren’t even ready to surrender until several days after the 2nd bomb. Keep that in mind-1 wasn’t enough.

      When a Japanese news crew asked Mr. King what he felt when they finally dropped the bombs, his answer was Relief. Relief it was finally over and everyone could go home. When you weigh an estimated million+ casualties against a couple hundred thousand, I think it sounds like a pretty good deal.

      Don’t go shooting off your mouth if you don’t know what you’re talking about.

  • Airborne 71

    I am willing to bet what is happening here is the fact that the Nuke arsenal costs the USA billions and billions to maintain and when the nukes are slashed he gets to declare the money as “Found ” or more tham likely “Saved” funds and he gets to line the pockets of his supporters. IMO this is ALL about MONEY and how he can lay his hands on more of it . And at the same time make the USA weaker , One of his main goal all along .

  • Richard

    “The reason why no other nation has openly attacked the United States since World War II is because they all knew that if anyone attacked us we would nuke them into oblivion.”
    Correct! The United States is such an evil country that without its cloak of nuclear protection many countries would probably have had a go at it. Couldn’t agree with you more!

    • Guido

      Yeah, and I suppose the Soviets and the other members of the nuclear club developed them just for ******** and giggles. Keep in mind, we developed nukes only AFTER the Nazis tried to get them first. Get your head out of your rear end.

  • John

    “Peace through strength”. “Trust but verify”.

  • ScoutMotto

    LaRouche is right in calling for Obama’s removal from office. He wants to make us sitting ducks for takeover by other nations. People are still trying to defend him as their president elect, but there is no defending this man. Samuel L. Jackson is on record as voting for Obama because Obama is black. What an idiot.

  • Chris

    OK several possibilities:

    1. Basically he’s just lying.

    2. It’s an accounting position. No weapons will be dismantled or moved but some will be reallocated to another body. UN possibly?

    3. USA is desperate for the nuclear material to run its nuclear plants?

    4. The USA now has something even more devasting than nuclear weapons. HAARP related possibly?

  • Rowell

    Not for nothing, with the current US nuclear arsensal, we could destroy the entire world many times over. How many times do you really need to destroy the earth to be the “top dog” anyway?

    Why spend billions of dollars for the upkeep of these nuclear devices when 1) they’ll never be used and 2) you don’t need so many? Talk about insanity.
    I think destroying the entire planet once is more than enough. Why maintain an arsensal of overkill?

    Michael, it’s time to stop the Cold War thinking. Nukes aren’t the answer. Russia knows it, China knows it, the US knows it.

    • Michael


      We could not destroy “the entire world” with the nukes we have now.

      Not even close.


      • Gay Veteran

        Michael, let me guess, you don’t believe in nuclear winter either

      • Ozmo


        I hate to disagree, but the fall out of just 1 100 megaton bomb is plenty to devastate hundreds of square miles depending of the prevailing winds. The radio active fallout, particles of dirt that become dangerous can bring so much more damage than the initial blast. I believe that is what people are talking about when it is stated we have enough to destroy the world a few times over. not only that anyone who wants to check out worldcatamap will see what we are doing now to destroy our planet.

    • mondobeyondo

      You’ll think they’ll never be used?
      You wanna bet?!

      There are more than enough nut cases in high offices. Mahmoud I’m a Demon Job is just the latest to come along.

      • Retired pol

        I live smack in the middle of nukes, and 45% of this economy depends on them. Not word one of eliminating them.”Nuclear war…where the living will envy the dead” I am quite happy to be living where I would be vaporized in the event of any exchange. A “Mad Max Thunderdome” existence for those who remain. No thanks.

    • Guido

      Really? Because Russia seems to be investing in new shelters. China??? We have no idea what they’re up to.

      Oh, btw, did anyone know the Russians may have concealed nuclear weapons INSIDE the US? I’m not making that one up. That news was reported by ABC in 1999 or 2000. I remember hearing that and being disgusted and pissed. I found it very interesting when that particular story was never discussed, commented on, or repeated ever again. It certainly wasn’t retracted and you can now find mention of it in multiple places. Look it up sometime.

      One of the first rules of international relations-Other nations may be friendly, but they are not your friends.

  • Colin


    Good illustration. This is just another stroke that will help further weaken our country. Can we count the ways? NASA, nuke control, repeal don’t ask, don’t tell, females in combat……all of these make us a weaker fighting country. No one likes war and it should be avoided at all costs. However, what will we do when our backs are against WWIII (see Germany/Japan for WWII) and we need to fight for freedom at all costs? Obama will not and should not be the man to lead us. Hell, has he even handled a weapon in his life? I highly doubt he fired anything but a sling shot. At least Jimmy Carter served in the Navy!

    • Gay Veteran

      Colin, you do understand that Israel allows Gays to serve in their armed forces. You think the Israeli Army is weak?

      • Colin

        Gay Veteran

        You’re easily offended and therefore pose a weak question out of shear reaction.

        The Arab Crescent is surrounding Israel as we speak and it won’t matter who is serving in their army over the next few years as they will be hunkering in bomb shelters. I don’t think the Israelis possess the level of military dominance you think they do.

        When the bombs come reigning down, Israel will require friends to help defend themselves militarily.

        • Ouida Gabriel

          Your forgetting something very important. Israel is God’s chosen people. They will not be annihilated even if the whole world turned on them. Never will happen.

          Ouida Gabriel

          • Colin

            I’m in agreement with you on that. Still, the masses will descend on Israel and threaten its existence before the righteous ones are saved.

        • Gay Veteran

          no I’m not easily offended

          you said “…This is just another stroke that will help further weaken our country. Can we count the ways? NASA, nuke control, repeal don’t ask….”

          so AGAIN, you do understand that Israel allows Gays to serve in their armed forces? You think the Israeli Army is weak?

  • jackier

    We could have something stronger or better such as the HAARP rem.

  • jackier

    Global nuclear arsenals are oudated and rusting away. Time for something better. The public will be kept in the dark.

  • Nick

    seriously what can you do about it? I know I can’t do anything about. Time you said -eff it and moved on with your life. Countries and peoples come and go. I don’t hear anyone lamenting the Hittites – do you?

    • Colin

      True, I know that this I have no control over. Countries and peoples do come and go, but I a complete laissez-faire attitude toward the subject isn’t how I roll.

      However I know who I’m NOT voting for in November, that I DO have control over.

  • D

    Lies. This is just to make the US look like good guys. They want that image for this Iran nuke talk propaganda. There will have plenty of stash when WWIII comes around, don’t worry. Peace, my friends.

  • El Pollo de Oro

    Barack “Goldman Sachs” Obama has demonstrated that he is very much a war hawk. Some libertarians, including Alex Jones and publisher Justin Raimondo, have often pointed out that his behavior is not unlike that of a neocon imperialist—and if he gets a second term (or even if he doesn’t), a war in Iran is imminent. Both the Democrat and Republican wings of the War Party are itching for a war in Iran, and most Republicans (major exception: Ron Paul) will pound the war drums in order to convince the GOP base that they are better imperialists than Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary “Bombs Away” Clinton.

    Gerald Celente often points out that when efforts to save a dying economy don’t work, politicians take you to war. He’s absolutely right. But imperialist warmongering and empire-building will not save The Banana Republic of America, formerly the USA, from a horrific downfall and an economic nightmare that is going to be even worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s. The Roman Empire is crumbling, and a war in Iran will not save the BRA’s dying economy or prevent us from sliding deeper and deeper into Third World misery. Imperialism will not save millions of formerly middle class Americans from a grim, hopeless future of abject poverty.

    If Americans had any sense, they would vote Ron Paul into office and forget the neocon empire fantasies. But no way is Ron Paul going to get the GOP nomination. So get ready for either President Obama or President Romney to bomb the living hell out of Iran (and increase the BRA’s already-staggering federal deficit).

    God help The Banana Republic of America, collapsing empire of the Third World.

  • justadad

    Some trust in chariots and some in horses but we trust in …?
    Nuclear Warheads?
    Gold & Guns & Grain?
    Politicians & legeslation?
    Just what is it that the USA puts its trust in?

  • A.S.

    Whatever Obama says is a half-truth at best. So in this case, I seriously believe that if he wants a max of 300, he really wants 150. I predict that by November 2016, we will have 150 and on our way down even more.

    You can’t make a deal with the DEVIL. Yeah, you heard me…I am calling Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and any other uranium enriching country that seeks an interest in nuclear missiles, the DEVIL. ESPECIALLY RUSSIA AND CHINA!!!

    Once a Communist, always a Commie. The Cold War never ended. Why are people so naive and completely incompetent at understanding a very simple concept that even a 5-year old from the 50s/60s would understand? The Russians and Chinese are NOT our friends. It’s like talking to wall. All you Obama supporters just signed your own Death Warrants. You picked him; now you have to die for him. May G-d have mercy on us!

    • Gay Veteran

      I don’t see Russia or China encircling us with military bases

      • Guido

        Of course you don’t-you’re blind to whatever isn’t directly in front of you.

        You don’t pay much attention to global events, do you? China and Russia HAVE been circling us. Not with bases, but with international agreements, special economic deals, and military training and supply and support agreements.

        Or perhaps you didn’t know China runs the Panama Canal now? And that they have special agreements in the Caribbean? Or that Russia is using Venezuela as a military base and is setting up arms factories for them. Or that China is looking to buy up the oil that was offered to us on a plate in the Keystone Pipeline deal? The list goes on and on.

        • Gay Veteran

          Guido, which country has 100s of military bases around the world? it ain’t China or Russia

  • mondobeyondo

    “From the mountains, to the prairies
    To the oceans, white with foaaammmm…”

    I feel the need to go hiking some of those purple mountains majesty. While I can still breathe that fresh mountain air.

    • mondobeyondo

      Going back up to the Grand Canyon in May.
      Lots of fresh air up there :)

      (If you’ve never been to the Grand Canyon, you MUST go! It is AWESOMEEEEE)

  • mondobeyondo

    Ah, Hillary Clinton.
    You are my heroin.
    I mean HEROINE.
    Spelling was not my strong point.

    No, really. It’s heroine.

  • Shut it all you naysayers. Obama knows that nukes pollute with radioactivity at such degrees that Fukushima would look like a cherry bomb by comparison. Those nukes are UNUSABLE.

    If the enemies were wiped out, any living things left would follow in a few years unless they lived under a lead dome with nano-particle air filters. How many of city sized versions of these does USA have for civvies? Zero? Maybe a few 10s of bunkers but even those may not be irradiated ready.

    USA has 1000s of nukes. And all it would take is just a handful to irrevocably irradiate the planet. Why would anyone want to maintain and pay for staff to keep that sort of unusable arsenal in place?

    If USA stocked up on super sized conventional explosive missiles, that would make sense. But nukes are as bad as airborne ebola or any exotic virus weapons. So don’t insult Obama here, he knows what he’s doing.

    Now if Obama were cutting back on conventional missile weapons, you’ll find me on your side asking why as well. The world likely is beginning to police itself but USA, at least to the non-Muslim/non-Middle East bunch is still a SORT OF global policemen (though the freedoms in USA are already eroding).

    • Joe Johnson

      Most of the people you are addressing are far right Neanderthals with no ability for critical thinking. This is by far the greatest reason for America’s demise.

  • Ramura

    Maybe the reason he is slashing them is because he knows that we already have scalar weaponry, and probably more. This makes nukes look like a fly-swatter, and notoriously dirty.

    Same reason behind cutting the “official” space program. With the secret space program having established a colony on Mars decades ago, and able to go to Mars in less than a lunch-time, what’s the point?

    Of course, they will never TELL us this! Because then they would have to explain the millions of deaths and wars over oil — none of which have been necessary for at least one hundred years since they killed Tesla and stole his research.

  • My litmus tests for president are ending the fed and cutting military spending by a third.
    I’d compromise at 80 per cent. The author seems to be one of those people who derive their self esteem by being a member of The Club That Can Beat Everyone Up.

    • Michael

      I don’t want to beat anyone up.

      I just don’t want to see my family and friends get nuked by Russia and China.

      Big difference.


  • BenjiK

    After reading some of the comments here I find myself asking: Maybe the military/feds have knowledge of a foreseeable future where for one reason or another they would not be able to contain/protect so many nukes. I hate to bang the conspiracy theory drum, but lately all signs seem to be pointing to a situation where things will be drastically different and perhaps uncontrollable in this country. What do you guys think?

    • The cellphone tech with satellites probably can be used to CONTROL minds with the EMF/ELF waves. With nanoparticulate iron or conductive materials like collodial silver in bloodstreams, the body becomes a receiver. Chemtrails probably are a form of psychoactive substance, and of course there is scalar weaponsry. So who needs nukes?

  • Michael

    This site often has good posts; but, I have to disagree with this one. A reduction in nuclear arms should be applauded whether it is initiated by Obama or Ron Paul. The destructive capability of even 300 strategic weapons remains horrific.

    Warheads raining down? This assertion stretches the bounds of credulity.

  • Kevin

    300 nuclear weapons is more then sufficient to deter any attack.

    Assuming 10% got through; you know of a nation that could afford to loose 30 cities/industrial centers? These are hydrogen bombs 10 to 1000 times the power of the fission bombs of WWII.

    France had the smartest strategy regarding nuclear weapons. Not wanting to attempt to go one for one with any threat they had enough nukes to in their words, “Rip your arm off”. No one would invade when you could kill more of them then the combined number of people killed in all the world wars.

    When is enough enough?

    I praise President Obama on this one. Reprocess the fission fuse into power plant fuel and keep the lights on.

    • Michael

      After a first strike we would be lucky to have any nukes yet.

      Thanks to the treaties we have signed, the Russians will know where most of our nukes are located.

      And the Russians will not launch ICBMs from Russia if they decide to hit us first. The missiles they hit us with will arrive in less than 5 minutes.


      • Kevin


        One Ohio Class sub can launch ICBMs with MIRV warheads.

        All the fast attacks have nuke SLCMs.

        That is the survivable leg of the triad.

        no worries. Enough would be left to ensure MAD is still valid.

    • Guido

      We are jumping to some rather large conclusions-have we yet heard exactly what size weapons are on the block? And do we know their actual types? For instance, are they atomic cruise missiles, ICBMs, nuclear torpedoes, our own suitcases, aging weapons, newer weapons, etc? What are their actual megatonnage? We’re all talking about it like they’re going to get rid of all these massive ICBMs full of warheads, when it could be something else. Until they give us some idea of what the weapons are, it’s just #s.

      These distinctions can become important because if Obama were to toss out the oldest stuff and bring in some new hot weapons, I guess that’s one thing. If we’re tossing out the old stuff and keeping newer, more reliable, more sophisticated stuff, then perhaps we could consider it. I thought I read somewhere we haven’t modernized our nukes in a while. Perhaps several hundred small, high-yield MIRVd warheads with the ability to do that mid-flight jinking and spinning the Russians were designing to counter our anti-missile technology or the ability to do deep-ground penetration prior to detonation would be a step up? Add those to our new missile tech that can put a missile anywhere on Earth in an hour and it might be a useful tradeoff?

      I still like having a lot of redundant weapons, just in case something ever happens.

      • Guido

        And wouldn’t it be interesting if we renounced the concept of traditional nuclear strikes in favor of EMPing the snot out of our enemies and letting nature take its course?
        That’s almost more terrifying than just looking forward to “…nukular combat toe-to-toe with the Russkies!”

        Imagine it.
        -sszzssip! No power, no water, no food, no moving vehicles, no radio comms, no phones… Your enemies would devour themselves.

  • Joe Johnson

    Bottom line of this perverse logic; more nuclear weapons throughout the globe= more global stability. Neither Russia or China have any interest in starting world war III, even the idiot that wrote this article must realize this fact. The launching of a nuclear arsenal by any country would result in an uninhabitable planet, it really doesn’t matter how many times over you can destroy the Earth.

  • TripWire

    Our ability to defend ourselves is already very limited. We absolutely cannot go to war with Iran or anyone else for that matter. Our conventional forces are not capable of attacking anybody. The troops are depleted and tired, our vehicles are old, worn out and in desperate need of overhaul and maintenance, and our Air Force needs training. On top of that O’ wants to gut the only deterrence we actually have? I have always thought that he was off-balance, now I know he is balls out crazy. Our nuclear force was designed and planned to be based on mutually assured destruction should anyone try and attack us, if O’ gets his way we are just putting out the welcome mat. It is niave to believe that gutting our defence will not have serious consequences.

  • i’vegivenup

    Just like the rise and fall of the Roman Empire so will be the fate of the USA. Our government is broken because of deep corruption. Debt has weakened our country’s defenses and ability to ward off attackers. We are in a panic mode but nobody seems to have any answers. Our society is coming apart by the seams. We have lost our way and too far gone to find our way back ever again. WWIII will be the finishing blow and it is coming sooner than one might think….

  • mondobeyondo

    Good mourning! Our Whitney Houston tribute is coming up soon. It’s Thursday, February 16th, 2012! Welcome to Goof Morning America. I’m Diane Sawyer. Who are you?”

    [Get me outta here… pleeezeee]

    • mondobeyondo

      Stick around for that Internet cat video that’s gonr viral on Youtube! He says “Chow mein” instead of “Meow”.

      Someone get me out of this nightmare….

  • andy

    Sorry to duplicate a post, but you might not all have access to facebook.

    Did you know that the Soviet Union / Russia has had more nuclear weapons than everyone else put together since the late 1970s? A trend which continues to this day, although they peaked in 1987.

    Now that didn’t help them much, did it? They slowly went bankrupt maintaining their massive stockpile of utterly unusable, very expensive weapons while everyone else got on with life.

  • Andre

    I wouldn’t worry about this one. He’s either lying or they have some tricks in the books. If you still believe what Obama is saying – that’s REAL insanity.

  • David Carswell

    Well i personally feel 300 hundred should be plenty enough to destroy the world provided the information (or propaganda) regarding the after effects of massive nuclear war… However it seems Nuclear Winter should have already taken place given 2053 nuclear bombs have already detonated here on earth. Which over 1000 were here in the United States (Nevada).
    My feeling personally is that we are experiencing that ‘nuclear winter’ in lung cancer (tobacco being the scapegoat)-and no i do not believe cigarettes are healthy! But believe the cancer (which most lung cancer patients are nonsmokers). And the sheep believe this “tall tale?”.
    Yes Obama is destroying our country but so is congress, the military, TSA, FDA, and just about everyone else. But I hold the sheep more accountable for allowing this to take place. Seems Americans are getting just what they ask for and I thank my fortunes for the chance to get out this summer as I am leaving forever proviced we make it that far.

  • Dr. Strangelove

    All those applauding this lunacy are forgetting that the Russians would mount a first strike with missiles launched from submarines parked not too far off our shores–the very first targets would be the 300 missiles left after this completely stupid idea. We would be left with only conventional weapons to retaliate but by that time it wouldn’t make any difference.

    • Michael

      Thank you Dr. Strangelove.

      You are one of the only ones that gets this.


    • Gay Veteran

      and what about out nuclear armed submarines?!?!?!?

      Dr. Stranglove indeed

    • Gay Veteran

      you are totally ignoring OUR submarines with nuclear warheads

      we can cut the Pentagon budget by 50% and no one would attack us

  • This is a catastrophe.

    The foundation for war is set. The historical conditions for a major war already exist – the three Es: Empires in decline, economic volatility and ethnic conflict (Israel vs its neighbors.) Russia has already been threatening nuclear war since the Russia-Georgia war in 2008, but nobody believes it. Check out the article below.

    Russian Threats of Nuclear War Grow Louder

    If Israel attacks Iran, then effectively Russia and China have threatened nuclear war. Again, nobody believes them.

    Now Obama wants to cut most of our nukes. Move to Chile now.

    Forget America, Immigrants With A Dream Are Moving To Chile

  • octavium

    The only insanity that is going on is that the us has such a vast amount of nukes. Do you realize that amarika is considered a semi third world country by the rest of the world.
    It might be time to use the assets in a better way.

    Even if america would be under nuclear attack. America would strike back. Thus if there are really 300 missiles left (which I doubt). Every country that has them will fire them. If they all would shoot the same amount… russia 300 china 300 israel 300 US 300 leaving out the rest. That’s still 1200 nukes going around. Equals end of world. And were not talking about tiny little ones like hiroshima and nagasaki. But multiple head missiles.

    Only seriously redneck Amerika thinks getting rid of them is a bad thing.

  • Had Enough

    Of course he will. If he can’t do it through the legislative branch of our government, he’ll sign an executive order. After all, he’s Dictator in Chief

  • Chrystine

    actually stop raising a ruckus chicken littles-we could probably still destroy the world 20 times instead of 150 times-and there will be plenty of well equiped soldiers-and stop wasting the TRILLIONS that we cannot afford-you guys complain about the deficit-then you whine about Oblamy cutting bidgets beep-reality disconnect

  • Ozmo

    I am not sure who said it but I believe if we are getting rid of nukes. We as a nation have something much more devastating in which we are building. there is the theory of anti-matter being extremely violent when made to react. why not make a bomb out of it before a fuel source? Its typical of what we do as people. If you know nothing of Anti-matter please read up on it before you post how stupid I am or don’t know I am talking about.

    Just my 2 cents

  • No, we are not nuking the planet…but th eonly reason why Obama would get rid of 80 percent of nuclear weapons is because Benny the Yahoo told him to….that way, Israel can buy the nukes for pennies on the dollar which would solve a little bit of the US debt problem, and should Libermann or some other psychopath get a hold of the Likud Party, Israel can use those nukes on, say, Iran or Syria or (use your imagination).

    • Kylie Michelle Fraser

      why would israel BUY nukes when they have their own. c’mon!

  • edu

    How many nukes do you need to destroy the world? Come on people you just want to complain about everything! By the time a nuclear war start no one will be able to use that quantity of weapons!

  • edu

    Honestly I found that most of North Americans are really paranoid about an foreign attack. How many countries really will want to attack you knowing the level of retaliation they will get from you?. There are the examples of Hiroshima y Nagasaki. You are just feeding that happy trigger culture and no justified violence against other countries. A GOOD LEADER IS NOT THAT WHO IS FEARED BUT THAT ONE WHO IS RESPECTED.

    • Kylie Michelle Fraser

      never mind the logistics of a nation like china or russia, or even BOTH invading america

  • chiller

    Any doubts Ostupid wants this country destroyed, financially and physically?

  • Sawyer50

    We only need so many nuclear war heads to take out the whole world, so in turn getting rid of what we don’t need, sounds about right to me. Plus the deal between Russia and us, for their uranium is ending. At least now we will have our uranium to use, and not have a shortage. Plus there’s a bonus, it’s our uranium, and we won’t have to pay for it.

  • Another spot on report American Dream. Chairman Obama is decimating the US military and intelligence communites as never seen before.

    His cutbacks are approaching W W I I levels.

    Communist Revolution Coming To Your Neighborhood.

    Should he get a second term, there will be Islam’s crescent moon and hammer and sickle flags flying over the White House.

    Be aware – be prepared!.


    P.S. “May you live in interesting times.” Ancient Chinese curse.

    • Gay Veteran

      Yoda, put down the crackpipe, the Pentagon budget is still incredibly bloated

  • Randome-11

    Russia isn´t going to invade, especially with the collaborator-in-chief Putin coming back, even if Obama reduce the number of ICBMs to 10-30.

    China, on the other hand… ICBMs are the least of troubles, biological warfare can empty a continent and provide living space for over half a billion Chinese.


    Eat drink and be marry as in the days of Noah,then sudden destruction cometh upon them.I believe nukes are not the real threat.Its the old magic trick.Bait and switch.Wagging the right hand and you dont see what the left hand is doing.Nearly seventy years of nukes.The powers that be have developed second and third generation HARP and SCALAR weopons.Not to mention chemical and biological weapons.God only knows what they have flying out in space!I THES.5:2KJV

  • Matt

    I don’t think you understand that the conventional forces of China and Russia are completely irrelevant. They lack the force projection skills that America does. And even if China and Russia join an alliance with each other, they wouldn’t be able to win. Because no one ever wins in Nuclear war. Even if we only have 300, we would still be able to destroy most of the enemy before they get a chance to live. And China’s nuclear program is most likely a joke.

  • View from Abroad

    “Russia is preparing for World War III and so is China. They both recognize that someday there is a very good chance that they will have to take on the United States.”

    Please remember your own words: “that they will HAVE TO take on the U.S.”

    IF this happens, the reason will be the same as when the U.S. – in your own understanding – “had to take on” Nazi Germany and Japan…to put an end to a fascist, militarist regime which went rampant around the world.

    As you noted yourself: The US is becoming rather like to Nazi Germany ( ) – the “WMD”-lie which covered the Invasion of Iraq was by no means different than the “Sender Gleiwitz” operation, which started the German Invasion of Poland.

    Small wonder that the other people of the world start preparing, is it?

    • Kylie Michelle Fraser

      yeah, I mean, how DARE the rest of the world defend themselves from aggression…

  • Ava

    Willman, I feel so much better after reading your comment. How do we know Obbummer won’t scale down on our other weapons? Well, I hope our military folks aren’t cretins. And I hope more of our citizens WAKE UP! I just can’t believe how utterly stupid the people are, they just dont want to hear the truth!

  • Dick

    Paranoia – a contagious disease. Many Russians were against the treaty on the reduction due to fear of U.S. attack. That’s how we live you are afraid of us, and we will. Is not that paranoid? On the other hand, NATO bombed Libya, now they want to do the same with Syria and Iran. You’re very aggressive, we have to arm themselves.

  • Stop being paranoid, Russians don’t want war… Bush and Obama are the ones spreading war across the globe at the moment….

  • reb

    nuclear missiles ruin the land for longer then anyone can live. our air water and food are already poisioned who can survive nuclear winter on top of that? no one. do you think china is going to jump on some plane and fly over afterwards? most americans don’t know how many warheads we have and the military keeps building them. why would we go to war? we are still doing the little “occupy steal thing” of oil enuff! The cost for such things is not even disclosed. we can afford bombs that we hope to not use but we can’t fix roads, bridges, schools, etc? wake up for that.

  • Frankie

    As a canadian, Disarming of nuclear devices is an excellent think. I don’t want to die in a global thermo-nuclear war, thank you very much

  • Dano

    How many nuclear war heads does it take to change a light bulb or as Forest Gump said, “stupid is as stupid does.”

    Regardless of the number of nuclear war heads internationally, how many are necessary for a global nuclear winter…an extinction event?

    In other words, the stupidity of the argument of “how many do they have and how many do we have,” reflects the ignorance and evolutionary defect of the human specie and why we have people stock piling nuclear weapons.

  • Dan

    Easy to pick on Obama, any of you war loving perverts ever been in one? Repubs are pro military? Rubbish! VA’s improve with dumbocrats…yeah! Really. Both parties pay us like crap and nickel and dime us on health care. But Obama doesn’t put veterans on the streets like Reagan did.

  • Bruce Wyner

    And by the way Dan their are countless stories of vets living in the streets under the Obama regime,One a colonel forced to retire with a bad back that served in 3 wars is living in his van in The Philly area where it’s pretty cool in the winter Dan.Life ain,t fair no one ever said it was but people like you piss me off to no end.You had plenty of time to succeed after Reagan was in office over 30 years later your still bitter.Sound like a total loser to me.

  • naryan

    Good for Obama, he knows what a massive waste of money they are.
    This “Oh the Russians and the Chinese are coming!” fear-mongering is exactly that.
    No country on earth can afford the economic costs of launching a nuclear weapon at anything, that is, if they weren’t totally overrun by every other country first.