Obama to Korea: About that Nuclear Bomb Thingy

[Buckethead]

You have to read that last paragraph? Obama will stop North Korea from building and launching nuclear weapons by signing a new treaty with the Russians that will limit the number of our own nuclear weapons.

Sometimes naïveté starts to slip slowly towards madness. If limiting our own nuclear arsenal is Obama’s idea of “smart power â€￾ diplomacy … the United States is in deep, deep trouble.

Link
President Obama faced his first big test on security yesterday after North Korea
launched a missile designed to carry a warhead as far as Alaska.
He said that such provocation underscored the need for action against the defiance of a rogue nuclear power and the spread of weapons across the world. The threat of North Korea acquiring nuclear missile technology, he said, “matters to all people, everywhere.â€￾

He told a crowd in Prague: “We cannot succeed in this endeavour alone but we can lead it, we can start it.â€￾ The US President promised to seek immediate Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, begin talks with Russia on cutting warheads and call for better controls to prevent terrorists or rogue regimes obtaining fissile material.

Im sure the russians were laughing their proverbial arses off.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Obama will stop North Korea from building and launching nuclear weapons by signing a new treaty with the Russians that will limit the number of our own nuclear weapons.

Sometimes naïveté starts to slip slowly towards madness. If limiting our own nuclear arsenal is Obama’s idea of “smart power â€￾ diplomacy … the United States is in deep, deep trouble.

Gee wiz, Dapoes Buckethead. So you have thought the United States is in "deep, deep trouble" for quite some time now, seing that a previous president had signed a treaty reducing the number of nuclear warheads. And furthermore, since another president's Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty" is set to expire soon, I suppose a new treaty to keep Reagan's legacy alive should be considered.

 

[freedom]

so bucket head ... you never introudced yourself ? who are ya , where do you come from ?

i can't help but get this feeling that i know you from somewhere ... hmmmmmm

 

[Garfield1966]

You have to read that last paragraph? Obama will stop North Korea from building and launching nuclear weapons by signing a new treaty with the Russians that will limit the number of our own nuclear weapons.

Sometimes naïveté starts to slip slowly towards madness. If limiting our own nuclear arsenal is Obama’s idea of “smart power â€￾ diplomacy … the United States is in deep, deep trouble.


Im sure the russians were laughing their proverbial arses off.

So, after these cuts do you think we will still have enough nuclear fire power to blow the world up? You do know that we currently posses enough to kill every living thing several times over. I fail to see how reducing the ability to .. OH 2 times has a down side.

Sure hope you are pretty.

 

[Buckethead]

So, after these cuts do you think we will still have enough nuclear fire power to blow the world up? You do know that we currently posses enough to kill every living thing several times over. I fail to see how reducing the ability to .. OH 2 times has a down side.

Sure hope you are pretty.

WTF? Sorry Garf, I dont swing that way.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

The problem with any treaty is that once ratified it becomes part of the US Constitution of the US and is therefore the law of the land. Same as with the other 160+ treaties the US has enterered into.

Piney, that isn't true. While a treaty becomes "supreme law of the land", it certainly does not become part of our Constitution. Rather, it is equivelant in status to federal legislation, and a true treaty requires 2/3 majority in the senate.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

You're correct, however I'd argue that becoming the "Supreme Law of The Land" carries the same weight as an amendment in many regards.

My point is the United States is already entangled in to many treaties as it is now. These treaties and the weight they carry limits our freedom and liberty as a sovereign state and ultimately our individual freedom and liberty.

Bottom line is the US needs another treaty like Dolly Parton needs a bigger chest.

Well, I think the nuance is very important. Seeing that it essentially has the same status as federal legislation, that would make it subject to constitutional muster, meaning that a treaty with another nation cannot be free from the restraints of our Constitution (this is subject to limited debate, but our supreme court has noted this restriction as well).

I would agree that treaties should be entered into sparingly. The treaty that was being discussed, however, would essentially be the renewal of a treaty that is set to expire. Thus, the net gain would be 0 at this point. I am interested in seeing, though, whether the new language will stray substantially from the language of the treaty set to expire.

 

[delldude]

So, after these cuts do you think we will still have enough nuclear fire power to blow the world up? You do know that we currently posses enough to kill every living thing several times over. I fail to see how reducing the ability to .. OH 2 times has a down side.

Sure hope you are pretty.

So maybe we should set an example for the rest of the boys in the nuclear club and totally eliminate our arsenal....yeah....thats the ticket.

 

[eolesen]

You do know that we currently posses enough to kill every living thing several times over.

Does anyone know that for a fact? Or is it just a widely subscribed myth like the existence/absence of God, global warming flooding 90% of California and the Eastern seaboard in the next 15 years, etc....

I have no doubt that the combined global nuclear arsenal could kill every living thing several times over in certain geographic areas, but it's yet to be proven you could really wipe out all life....

 

[Garfield1966]

So maybe we should set an example for the rest of the boys in the nuclear club and totally eliminate our arsenal....yeah....thats the ticket.

Considering that their use, unilaterally or bi-laterally would result in the end of life I see their elimination as a good thing.

 

[Garfield1966]

Does anyone know that for a fact? Or is it just a widely subscribed myth like the existence/absence of God, global warming flooding 90% of California and the Eastern seaboard in the next 15 years, etc....

I have no doubt that the combined global nuclear arsenal could kill every living thing several times over in certain geographic areas, but it's yet to be proven you could really wipe out all life....

There is no way to prove it. I read a few articles on it in the Bulletin of Atomic scientists. Given the amount of nuclear material in the US/Russian arsenals and the amount of matter that is likely to be pumped into the atmosphere I am satisfied that they are correct in their theory.

As an aside, I read an article a while back that theorized that if all the nukes were set off at one time, this would be a high likely hood that the resulting explosion would blow the atmosphere off the earth. Again, one of those things that cannot be proven.

BTW, if you agree that it could kill every living thing, that would be the end of life. I think I understood what you meant though.