Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear Arms Cuts, Supported By 56% of Americans, Would Make the World Safer
Lasrick writes "Kingston Reif of the Nukes of Hazard blog writes about nuclear arms reductions are back in the news, thanks to President Obama's State of the Union address and now also a Gallup poll that shows 56% of Americans support U.S.-Russian reductions. From the Article: 'A recent report by the Center for Public Integrity revealed that senior Obama administration officials believe the United States can reduce its arsenal of deployed strategic warheads to between 1,000 and 1,100 without harming national security. Those numbers would put the total below levels called for by New START...' Congressional Republicans of course are against those cuts; Reif lays out why the cuts would make the U.S. and the world safer."
Do we even need a thousand nuclear warheads?
Need to mind the mineshaft gap!
I'm just wondering if we (and they) have so many because they'd want to be sure to punch through any kind of SDI/Star Wars missile defense system?
I had a sucky sig.
Says who? And will countries like NK or Iran follow suit or not? And does that result play into the discussions at all?
Opinions do not equate to facts, yet some people like reporting as if they do.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Do we even need a thousand nuclear warheads?
Look, pal, what happens when Stalin's got enough nuclear warheads to destroy the planet nine hundred ninety-nine times? Yeah. That's what I thought. You've got nothin' to that.
Why are talks between us and Russia while China is rapidly increasing their nuclear stockpile?
If 1000 to 1100 warheads is sufficient for the most paranoid people on the planet who are fully informed about the situation, then doesn't that mean the proposed cuts are still leaving way too many?
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Nuclear deterrent is great, otherwise, there's little stopping major countries from invading each other. Keep in mind, you don't only need enough warheads to take out the country you're fighting, you need enough to take out all their allies as well. Plus, what if half of your warheads are taken out because your enemy struck first?
The only drawback is it's easier to lose one through theft or whatever; also the whole waste management thing....
But nuclear deterrent is probably the #1 thing that has enabled the world's major powers to get along.
We're already slowly but surely working on anti-matter weaponry and high-energy weaponized lasers. We'll be able to obliterate and/or lase the surface of the planet likely before anyone else.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
By the time you launch the first 100 nuclear bombs the world will go down the toilet, so why does it matter? really?
We'll just kill it three times. Safer!
link the world's electrical grids so that excess capacity in one country could be sold to another country on the other side of the planet. Once everyone is solidly connected to a world wide electric grid and each country depends on the excess capacity of another country on the other side of the planet, what are you gonna do, attack the other countries and eliminate part of your won power supply.
Of course, this depends on the idea that we're going to move along to what's been called a Type 1 civilization but the current trend is well away from that pinning us as a Type 0 by reducing our resource consumption, energy consumption and population.
Or rather you can deter violence by not pissing everyone off and becoming friends with them.
The US is its own worst enemy in that respect.
The easiest ones to cut are in the silos, but the ones that really break the bank are cruising through the oceans on our absurdly expensive nuclear submarines. For obvious reasons they don't want to cut the sub-launched missiles.
Because the US and Russia possess two orders of magnitude more nuclear weapons than China possesses. Even after reduction each will individually hold more than four times what China currently holds.
However this should be US/Russia/China reduction of nukes, possibly expanding to ask other nations with smaller arsenals to start limiting wasteful spending, on what is essentially a pointless standoff weapon with very ugly costs to the human race on the whole for any accidental discharge.
I'm sure all your friends in Equestria agree with you.
Why of course?
Why at all?
Do we even need a thousand nuclear warheads?
If we ever want to travel to Alpha Centauri we do. How about putting those nukes toward the construction of an interstellar pulsed nuclear space drive?
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
I think we should send some of what we have now on a one-way trip to North Korea. That would make everyone happy. For the liberals we would have actually reduced the number left. For the conservatives we would have used them as intended and made the U.S. much safer by demonstrating that they can be used and are not just an empty threat.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Because even if you launch 50 nukes the world is probably fucked as it is so why have thousands?
If China is making nukes, then that means they want more (i.e. they are less likely to participate in something like this). Russia on the other hand seems to have a bunch of nukes it doesn't necessarily want (like us), so we can get rid of nukes together. We aren't getting rid of all our nukes so we still have a deterrent. We can still destroy China Iran and NK in a couple hours if we wanted. China wants a similar capability. At some point having more nuclear weapons gives you no added benefit, but it still comes with more risk and expense to keep your arsenal from getting into the wrong hands.
The difficult part about getting defense people to commit to decreasing the stockpile is that we have no idea when, if ever, we will be able to start producing new warheads. That turns it from being a discussion about how many we strategically need, towards a discussion about how certain were are that the stockpile we have will still be functional when we need it, and "can't we keep them all just in case". It would suck to destroy an entire line of warheads because they seem least valuable today, only to find out later that the ones we kept had an aging problem we couldn't detect before which didn't effect the destroyed line.
If 900 missiles hit the continental USA, I don't think vengeance and counter attacks will be your biggest problem/priority. Neither a soviet invasion (who wants to conquer a wasteland?)
Also, a "surprise" attack with 900 nukes is hardly "surprise" and if movies have taught me anything, is that the US can launch its nukes in less than an hour.
On the other hand, if you downgrade to only a 100 warheads, then it's quite possible a small group of conventional strikes could remove your entire arsenal, and there goes MAD...
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
That's not really an overwhelming majority, is it? So what, take action anyway and to hell with the concerns of the other 38-44 percent who don't agree that it's a great idea? That could arguably be cited as an example of a tyrannical majority.
(I personally think 1,000 warheads is plenty enough to deter rogue states or factions that happen to get a few nukes and an urge to blackmail with 'em, but there's principle here.)
I missed the distinction that these are deployed weapons were are talking about. My comment doesn't apply to those, but to the other ~4000 stockpiled ones.
There are lots of reasons to have a shelter besides a nuclear attack. If you make yourself less vulnerable while reducing your offense you make yourself a less likely target.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Because China owns the US government and economy.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
We did hit the reset button with Russia. That's gone well, hasn't it? We're just two peas in a pod now...
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
Its called the nuclear deterrence. If everyone has nukes pointed at everyone no one will actually pull the trigger because it would in turn cause their enemies to launch back at them and everyone fires their nukes and everyone dies. Yes it sounds horrible but its the only deterrence to all out war. If no one had the ability to wipe out an entire nation we would have more large scale war because if a country can invade another and statistically destory them with no recourse then it becomes more appealing. Or say you meet a robber on the street and he pulls a gun on you, youre only choice is to give what he wants or he kills you but if you have a gun pointed at him he wont shoot because you would shoot him and you both are guarnteed to lose but atleast his chances of defending himself increase without being robbed or getting shot.
Nuclear weapons are needed as a form of defense against nuclear war. Just getting rid of them all solves nothing. Its as stupid as saying getting rid of guns will solve crime and violence in the world magically overnight.
A 'Soviet' invasion? Wasn't there a Simpson's episode about that?
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
Ah yes, because Switzerland is such an /unsafe/ country....
Switzerland is a model of how to build a sane foreign policy and a sane military (although they should abolish the draft and have a 100% volunteer army) .
As odd as it may sound, no one wakes up one morning and says "Hey, I feel like being a terrorist!" things like invasions and occupations create terrorists. Supporting right-wing dictators (like the US did throughout the cold war and even beyond) creates terrorists. Drone strikes on civilians create terrorists.
The US has a completely flawed foreign policy, especially as it relates to nuclear arms. They have this idea that apparently in 2013 no one should be able to replicate basic nuclear science that the US did way back in the 1940s! Rather than a sane foreign policy of friendship, understanding and unrestricted trade.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Or rather you can deter violence by not pissing everyone off and becoming friends with them.
Yes, this is the "all unicorns and glitter except a few spots of Nickelodeon slime that haven't gotten the message yet" philosophy. Except it's ignoring the slime spots altogether and hoping for the best.
What would make the world safer is a little less fear and paranoia. Holding people without trials, ordering assassinations of citizens...this does nothing for the citizen's ideal of safety within the homeland, to speak nothing of without.
A weapon is a weapon is a weapon...it's the mind behind it that you need to be wary of, not the weapon itself. Even if we eliminated every WMD in existence, a new one could be cooked up over a long weekend by a skilled chemist or physicist. Feel me? Understand me? No, you may not. That's not important. The point is, douse the flames of nationalism and global paranoia before the US & friends end up like NK, who is, by various accounts, going full schizo this week.
The average human being can die in an innumerable number of ways every day: the way they get through their day, get on with their lives, is by being largely blind to the sheer number of possibilities in which they can bite the big one. When you make them too aware of these ways, then they stop working, start OCDing / ruminating on the various ways, and get trapped in a 'fear maze' with no exit. These national security jokers, who, in their short term greed / self interest of securing more resources for themselves by cranking up the fear factor, have seriously unhinged some parts of this society that are not meant to be unhinged, unless we want a civil war...which is where we are headed. Now, sometimes a civil war is a good thing, or so I am told, but the fact remains that my personal confidence in anyone's reasons for starting one, let alone their game plan for day two, are currently at an all time low.
I am John Hurt.
I fear the man who wants 1.
The difference between Theory and Practice is greater in Practice than in Theory.
Why 1,000? Why is 1,000 the magic number? Why not 10,000 or 50,000?
Not if they are submarine based.
It's rather difficult to do that when many of your warheads are in submarines hiding at the bottom of the ocean.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Who gives a shit what 56% of the general populace think? They aren't qualified to have a meaningful opinion.
Did I miss the high school class on thermonuclear tactics? Pretty sure I would have gone to that.
I mostly agree, except for the draft part. I think a draft is actually a good deterrent against aggressiveness - an all-volunteer army means if soldiers are fighting and dieing it's by their choice and the general populace can accept it more easily. On the other hand if random people's children are being drafted there will be far more public outcry against the war.
There's another nice feature of making military service mandatory for all: Your entire population is combat trained so you have a massive competent militia available for defense, whether against invaders or an oppressive government. You've got to be pretty driven to try to take military control of a country where everyone is competent to fight in the streets.
That said though, the Swiss still have an added advantage in that they live in Switzerland - a geographically unappealing target for conquest. Doubly so since they are pretty strongly dedicated to neutrality so that expansionists don't feel the need to conquer them to protect their flank.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Switzerland is a model of how to build a sane foreign policy and a sane military (although they should abolish the draft and have a 100% volunteer army) .
So your policy for national security of your country is to act like the country recognized for laundering the money for corrupt politicians and criminals around the world? If you think switzerland is safe because its friendly, you really are out of touch with the world. Switzerland is only safe because A) it offers nothing of value B) They know ALLL the dirty little secrets of the politicians. Attacking them would be the end of hidden money supply, the rest of the world would immediately respond to you in kind ... oh... AND THERES NOTHING THERE TO WANT.
You have no idea why that only works for piss ant little countries that no one cares about otherwise ANYWAY?
No one fights to invade Siberia either. Well okay, not anymore, but the last guys who did learned why it was a dumb move there too.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Easy - it's smaller than the current number, and still way too big for us to need them all in any conflict that doesn't leave us totally fucked regardless.
The *only* reason to have a massive stockpile of nukes is to scare the other guy off from trying anything - i.e if you try anything you'll be even more fucked than we are. It worked during the Cold War (mostly, we almost crossed the line several times), but we kinda went overboard and now we both have far more weapons than we need even for a MAD scenario.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Because even France has more nukes than China currently does? The US and Russia both have well over an order of magnitude more weapons than China. We could probably watch them launch most of their nukes if not all of them, then shoot down the ones that get close and not break a sweat. As far as we can tell, they only have a few hundred bombs. We could (the US) easily survive direct hits from almost their entire stockpile and survive well enough that they wouldn't want to invade us anymore than we wanted to fight a land war in Japan. Remember, America is not like the rest of the world, we have A LOT of people living in rural areas. Take out EVERY city and you STILL have significant populations of people to deal with.
On the contrary, we can drop roughly 7,000 on them in less than an hour if we wanted to turn the Gobi into a big glass parking lot.
China probably would like more evenly related numbers.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
You've obviously been doing too much of something that's not helpful for reading comprehension. I suggest checking in to a rehab center before you kill your remaining brain cell.
You might want to recheck that. The average nuclear warhead in the US arsenal is approximated to be 33,500 kilotons (slightly larger than the well known B41). For comparison, the nukes used in/on Japan were 15 and 21 kilotons. 33,500 kilotons is large enough to destroy/kill everything in a 55-60 mile diameter. It would take about 1000 of these to DIRECTLY kill everything in the United States. Factor in the indirect damage (nuclear poisoning, fallout, etc etc), and you could kill everyone in the United States with far far fewer. India (for example only), has 1/3rd the area of the United States. It would take probably 100 33.5 megaton nuclear bombs to kill everyone in an area equal to the size of India, and it would likely kill a couple hundred million of people not in that area.
That's completely false, most modern missile-based nukes are in the hundreds of kilotons, like 100-500 kt. 33.5 megatons is larger than the largest bomb we've ever had in service, the B53 at 9 megatons.
Castle Bravo and they weren't even trying to do that. It was supposed to be 4-6 megatons but somebody forgot to carry the two, metaphorically speaking. There was some reaction they didn't anticipate. Remember--no supercomputer simulations back in those days. This also has to make you think when some nuclear scientist says, "we don't expect $technology to do $damage".
As a result of the US test, some poor fisherman that thought they were in the safe zone were not.
The USSR has us beat with Tsar Bomba of course; but that was a very impractical weapon. They intentionally decreased it form 100 megaton to 50 megaton because they figured the plane wouldn't be able to fly away in time. Now imagine that the Soviets had gone for the full 100 megaton shot, and miscalculated like the Americans...
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
China has restarted nuke warhead production (or possibly, they never shut it down like they claimed). They claim 240, but others have it much higher. In particular, during their last major earthquake, they had a number of tunnels with cave-ins. It turns out that CHina has some 3000 miles of tunnels running around china that they had not spoke about, untill these were caught. Then China said that it is used for a number of land based missiles, they they had claimed did not exists PRIOR to this.
BUT, the real problem is that over by their new reservoir, a number of ppl came out from underground and all were wearing sealed bunny suits for working with nukes. This was an area unknown to the world. BUT, it was treated as though it had a nuclear accident. China admits that they have some military nuclear operations there, but will not discuss it.
IF we do not drop our count, it does not change the current situation. HOWEVER, if we drop it down, and China feels that they have the ability to launch a first strike and block our retaliation, while hitting us with a second, that would likely lead to a nuke war.
It is actually in the worlds best interest for America and Russia to keep theirs until China is forthcoming about their true stockpile.
And if you believe that it is 240 warheads, well, their MIRVs on their current boomers (1 type 92 and a minimum of 6 type 94; some intel indicates that they have closer to 10 subs; ) is more than 240 warheads. In fact, with their absolute KNOWN subs, they can carry a max of ~500 warheads. That does not include their air based, truck based, and now, underground mobile launchers. So, for China to claim 240 warheads and others to buy into that bunk, is just plain foolish.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
They're actually not likely to be much use against asteroids, Hollywood dramatizations aside. Nuke an asteroid and what do you get? A whole much of smaller asteroids on the same path - you've just turned a rifle slug that will probably hit you into a bunch of buckshot that certainly will - and odds are good that at least several fragments would be large enough to be "planet-killers" in their own right. Not to mention you've converted a single point-of-impact that might leave survivors on the the far side of the planet to something that's going to rain down all over the planet, and increased the odds of a potentially much more devastating ocean strike considerably.
Defending against a planet-killer will likely require deflecting the asteroid by gravity-tug, laser ablation, or surface mounted thrusters long before it reaches us, when a fraction of a degree deflection will be enough to send it off on a harmless path.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I'm fairly confident you could drop 900 missiles on the US and not get most of my friends. I admit, I'm currently in an urban area so I'd get toasted, but America isn't (insert whatever country your from that clearly is THE SHIT compared to us) so don't assume we're as retarded and all live in 3 cities. America is broken into the 3 parts. West coast, East of the Mississippi, and 'no mans land' in the middle. While they could wipe out the east and west coasts and a few of the larger central cities with those 900, they wouldn't be able to blanket the entire area of the East of the Missippi.
Facts from areas with ACTUAL bombs dropped on them show that the 'fallout' isn't nearly as life ending as its made out to be in hollywood. In fact, there are more people living on land that has had nukes detonated on it now than there were before the nukes were detonated.
900 nukes would not make Fallout a reality, contrary to what you might think. I'd worry if you thought we'd get his by say ... 4000 or so (the entire ACTIVE arsenel of russia or the US for instance) ... well, I'd be a little more concerned with how much habitable parts of the US there were left.
If the radiation from the blast is going to kill you, you'll be vaporized by the heat first.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
A Mexican standoff is only "peaceful" until somebody flinches. Or a nearby car backfires. Or... You might want to take a look at how many times we almost crossed the line during the Cold War - would have even if not for the principled refusal to follow orders of the soldier at the switch.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Not genocide. I'm not suggesting we get rid of all Orientals, just the ones in and around the capital of a county that has been threatening us with a preemptive strike. Besides, ACs don't get mod points.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I think a draft is actually a good deterrent against aggressiveness - an all-volunteer army means if soldiers are fighting and dieing it's by their choice and the general populace can accept it more easily. On the other hand if random people's children are being drafted there will be far more public outcry against the war.
I often prefer freedom over safety. This is one of those cases. I consider it a great threat to freedom when your government can force you to go die in a war that is perhaps unjust, and that is why I would support a constitutional amendment banning all forms of drafting.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Only one? I've got one trained on each house in my neighborhood. I don't trust any of them.
The second amendment is generally considered to only include small arms. Even the NRA agrees. Too bad because I really would love a 155mm self propelled gun. Next time my neighbors started up that damn late night party I'd crash hell out of it in a way they'd remember.
Flavius Vegetius Renatus, "De re militari" (390 C.E.): "Qui desiderat pacem, bellum praeparat; nemo provocare ne offendere audet quem intelliget superiorem esse pugnaturem"
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Sink the submarines?
I7, no? Ok what about E6? No, darn. How about A8?
The USA and USSR didn't build tens of thousands of nuclear warhead because we needed to be able to "destroy the world ten times over" or whatever the pro-disarmament phrase was; we built that many weapons so that even if 99% of them were destroyed in a massive surprise first strike, the remainder would be able to destroy the first striker just once. The threat of retaliation then outweighs any incentives for anyone to commit a first strike.
But none of that applies to threats from NK or Iran. They have neither the technology nor the economies to hit a thousand hardened silos in a massive surprise first strike, and they're not going to be able to change that without decades of obvious development, so even a couple hundred warheads is still more than enough to pave over either country with glowing green glass. The problem with proliferation is a different one: when a nuke in a random incoming shipping container destroys some major harbor city, how do we even know whom to retaliate against?
Um, no. Neither weapons grade plutonium nor weapons grade uranium emits dangerous levels of radiation except when critical, and the un-fissioned material loses criticality almost immediately (certainly within a millisecond of detonation.) You are almost correct in that fallout is often the worst source of radiation, but this radioactive fallout is created by the neutron flux of the nuclear blast, not the post-critical fission material. And the largest nukes we have (so-called fission-fusion-fission, which utilize a Uranium-238 stage) easily emit enough deadly radiation to kill you even if you are safe in an airtight concrete bunker.
RELEVANCE: Energy Policy.
The USA had the most uranium. It is nearly all gone. Our nuke plants need the stuff. Now we IMPORT it! Waste a ton of money on extra nukes or save money and use the fuel.
Nuclear tactics is not physics. The word Nuclear does not make simple things difficult. This is a big pork welfare program disguised as defense - and just like before, those who stand to lose money will be screaming to save it. Like like the F-22, it has economic ties around the whole nation.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The United States conducted around 1,054 nuclear tests The Soviet Union conducted 715 nuclear tests The United Kingdom has conducted 45 tests France conducted 210 nuclear tests The People's Republic of China conducted 45 tests The official number of Indian nuclear tests is 6 Pakistan conducted 6 official tests, and around 24 nuclear cold tests There may have been several other alleged tests. The increase in background radiation due to these tests peaked in 1963 at about 0.15 mSv per year worldwide, or about 7% of average background dose from all sources.
Please have respect for people with different abilities, especially children.
Allow me to clarify: the English language has tenses, and you clearly have issues with them. Present: the U.S. and Russia have orders of magnitude more than China. Future (post reduction): the U.S. and Russia each have more than four times as much as China. Simple, no?
I'll admit it's a difficult discussion. On the one hand I wouldn't want to be dragged off to die in an unjust war (of course I could always choose incarceration as a draft dodger instead). On the other hand how many unjust wars would we never get in to in the first place if our military weren't essentially a band of nationalistic mercenaries?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
For me, it's simple. The draft is about as anti-freedom as you can get, so I oppose it. If you can't get enough volunteers for a war, maybe it's not a war you should be having; whatever the case, the people clearly don't want to die for you.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Notice I said "defend against", not tolerate. As in "keep it from hitting". Any sizable nation could likely survive dozens if not hundreds of nuke strikes, in the sense that the core government personnel would likely be hidden away and anyone not in an immediate blast area would probably survive, even if they and their children suffered from extremely elevated cancer rates. As you point out the whole nuclear winter scenario is vastly overstated. On the other hand even just one or two nukes in the middle of a dozen of our most economically and industrially important cities and I'm betting the nation would take decades to recover, minimum.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
We've surrounded Iran with dozens of military bases, crashed their economy and currency with sanctions, illegally threatened them with military force, and committed multiple acts of war on a country over the....nuclear weapons program both the CIA and Israelis admit they don't have.
So when does Iran get to threaten the United States for being in "material breach" of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires disarmament for countries already in possession of nuclear weapons?
The point of most nukes is to destroy other nukes in their silos. That's what nuclear war was all about - who has the capability to strike first and who can take a strike and have enough warheads left to have a credible retaliatory strike. This is called the "counterforce" mission and is very important in nuclear strategy. The strategy of hitting cities is very secondary and is called "countervalue". Hitting population centres is not primary goal of nuclear war - usually you go for their nukes, their military installations, their oil production and refining and their manufacturing. Where this is close to cities then the cities get roasted. It turns out to do these things it actually takes quite a few nukes, especially if your opponent has anti-ballistic missile (ABM) capabilities as the US and Russia do (and to a limited extent, Israel), and presumably China is also working on this.
The principal effect of 50 nuclear warheads aimed at remote silos (notice how in the US, Russia and China the silos are in the middle-of-nowhere?) is probably insignificant on a national scale and certainly on a global scale with regards to blast and fallout. They can have an effect on the climate but this is peanuts compared to something like Krakatoa and probably even smaller events like the Iceland volcanic eruptions or Mount St Helens.
One doesn't have to agree, or disagree, with nuclear war to understand that it is not entirely madness to wage it. The thousands of nukes weren't built for no reason - a careful calculus was made to ensure first strike survivability. As each side in the Cold War did new calculations the numbers climbed - but the numbers weren't arbitrary - they were the result of careful study.
Oh, and here's a total babe, Rebeccah Heinreichs, talking about Obama's unilateral cuts to the US nuclear triad - who *analysis* believes that around 2700 warheads are needed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JY0r2rxZPk
Note that Obama's cuts are not really about saving money money. After all, he'd save vastly more by limiting entitlements and social programmes (the unfunded liabilities being promised completely dwarf even the current US deficit). The cuts also are not because the nukes aren't needed, they are needed for decades to come and for unseen threats in the next 50 years. The cuts are all purely ideologically based on Obama's (flawed) world view. Sadly, his supporters don't want to face the truth about his intentions to remake America by first breaking it by overspending and weakening its traditional strengths. Obama wants to unilaterally disarm and surrender the US to the world. He's already abandoned many allies. The world is about to get very chaotic as a result of a lack of strong leadership from secular democracies lead by the US.
It's certainly a perfectly reasonable position, on another day I might argue it myself. But it's YOUR government, ultimately answerable to YOU that's getting into wars in the first place. It's not unreasonable to expect YOU to pay for it in blood and tears as well as money. Or more to the point: if you are unwilling, then mobilize to rein in the government and stop the war before your number is called. Instead we all sit on our hands and let our government send its cybernetic mercenaries out to murder hundreds of thousands of people because it costs us nothing personally - only tax dollars that would have left our pocket anyway.
Or here's a thought - rather than a draft lets get back to the original military funding mechanism - every war needs to be funded by an independently levied tax. We go to war, everyone immediately feels the pinch on payday.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The only counter to nuclear weapons is the threat of other nuclear weapons. Carriers are insignificant compared to the capability of even a few ballistic missiles. Carriers are handy because they can be used at lower levels of conflict, so they have their uses. However, the top of the defence food chain are nuclear weapons (with several different types of delivery options). There is no substitute for nuclear weapons for global powers. Unilaterally pursuing nuclear disarmament is utter insanity - there are countries in the World who would nuke a disarmed US without blinking. For example, Iran and North Korea say they would on nearly a daily basis - which doesn't make their threats hollow as some people believe - but show that the enemies of the US have the will but are in fact deterred for now by the large US nuclear arsenal.
Most people in the US don't know that the Iranians have installed around sixteen Shahab 3 missiles in a mountain redoubt in Venezuela: http://www.topix.com/forum/ve/caracas/TFOGPR88FQV6RHJGC This missile can't quite reach the US but with extended ranges of successors (from shared missile tehcnology between Iran and North Korea) and the Iranian nuclear weapons program the citizenry of the US ought to be very very concerned - and certainly not allowing Obama to progressively disarm the ultimate deterrent that the US has (that is, its nuclear triad). I'm glad I don't live in the US - its enemies are working on its destruction while its leaders are busy squabbling over how to bribe voters by spending money it doesn't have (note that the massive spending is nearly all on social programmes; despite what you are told, defence is a pittance in comparison).
The world would also have been safer if the USSR had won the cold war and we'd all be living under a communist dictatorship. Safety isn't all that matters.
Yeah people can tell themselves that all they want. Keep in mind these are people who claim no fault on agent orange or gulf war syndrome. Nor are they really any good with "surgical" strikes using smaller munitions. So I'm not buying the claim they'll only hit out in the middle of no where and it'll have no effect. Sorry but the US gov has a poor record on the truth.
That way they're available for the common defense of Mankind, in the event of alien attack or some other event that threatens all of humanity equally.
Go look at his other post, inexplicably still modded up to +4, where he claims that the radiation danger from nukes comes from the left over fissile material (U or P), not the blast itself. One insanely stupid comment can be written off to a misunderstanding, but a second comment in the same topic clearly indicates a troll: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3537197&cid=43144999 Cruise missiles have been obsolete for many decades. The issue is, from my understanding, is twofold: they do not move fast enough and they fly at a low altitude over miles of land that could be covered with defenses. Ballistic missiles approach their targets insanely fast (some do over Mach 20) due to their parabolic flight path giving more time to accelerate downwards. Also due to their parabolic flight path, they bypass an enemy's border defenses through sheer altitude. Now there *is* a reasonable argument that SLBMs are better than ICBMs, but as I said this is clearly a troll. Mod down.
This is sheer nonsense, as I've noted above. But I've just noticed he's posted another priceless bit of nonsense here: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3537197&cid=43145013 . He is clearly trolling this article, for whatever reason. Either that or he is laughably misinformed and being very cocky about it.
But it's YOUR government, ultimately answerable to YOU that's getting into wars in the first place.
But I might not have voted for them. Furthermore, even if I had voted for them or supported them at one point, that doesn't mean I'd support this war. I mean, if I did want to go to war, I'd sign up for the army to begin with. Plenty of people protested the draft before, but it doesn't always work, and not everyone is willing to pay the price of disobeying (usually jail), so they just run. I think the very principle of it is morally wrong.
Instead we all sit on our hands and let our government send its cybernetic mercenaries out to murder hundreds of thousands of people because it costs us nothing personally - only tax dollars that would have left our pocket anyway.
Unfortunately, a number of people may even support the wars.
Or here's a thought - rather than a draft lets get back to the original military funding mechanism - every war needs to be funded by an independently levied tax.
I don't think that's such a terrible idea.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Says who?
Whomever said it.
And will countries like NK or Iran follow suit or not?
Iran doesn't have any nukes so that's a pretty easy one to solve. I don't know how many North Korea have but I assume one single Ohio-class submarine alone can do quite enough damage to NK.
And does that result play into the discussions at all?
Likely. But I think it rather goes like:
"Ok, we and Russia have the most nukes and more than enough. How many are enough?"
If you got enough to bomb the shit out of the other player having 9,000 or two million or whatever possibly doesn't do much difference.
Ask yourself:
"Would the US even be willing to risk having three nuclear strikes one over the white house, one in New York and one over Pentagon?"
Or even one in any of the places?
As far as Iran goes I don't know of much evil they have done or are doing so far but I guess someone can tell me. US seem rather willing to be on any side, switch sides and do whatever as long as they see the most strategic value on that partner/situation regardless of what prick or people they have to do with so I don't really buy "they aren't a democracy!" or dictator or terrorism or whatever. All those are cool and ok in some cases and in some cases not. I guess the problem with Iran is that they are big and they aren't allies/part of NATO like Turkey and Israel.
I think it's more likely about holding others back so no-one get big enough to pose much of a threat rather than "omg you're so evil!", evil is just fine as long as they mostly bark or the US can handle it.
Opinions do not equate to facts, yet some people like reporting as if they do.
Opinions do not equate to facts, yet some people like reporting as if they do.
I don't know what the facts are but chances are their opinion is better researched than whatever yours happen to be.
Let's not kid ourselfs, this is probably all about cheap nuclear power production:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/business/energy-environment/10nukes.html?_r=0
New things are always on the horizon
So while Obama chatters on about reducing or eliminating all American atomic weapons he appears to willfully ignore that Russia, China, France, India, Pakistan never will. And of course neither with North Korea nor Iran. The UK might, in fact there's a pretty good chance they will de-nuclearize because they simply can't afford it nor do they want the political fallout of maintaining it any longer. It's hard to see how this makes anyone safer. It probably doesn't make them less safe either. It's simply a political move for domestic consumption.
Nuclear arms held by the US and Russia aren't a threat to "the world" as both are rational actors. MAD works with rational actors.
The idea that "examples" work with nations that have other agendas is absurd. The way to deter nation-state war by superpowers is for each to be able to wipe the other out so they never recover.
The reason to maintain such capability even though the world situation changes is because it can change in any direction.
There is no downside to keeping the nuclear triad. (Aircraft/SLBM/land-based ballistic missiles. They have prevented nuclear war since the end of WWII.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Destroy enough of lower Manhattan, and: (a) more Americans would die within a month from starvation, thirst, or disease than not; and (b) even more people would die outside the U.S. as a result than in it. Most Slashdotters have absolutely no clue how dependent all industrialized countries are on the smooth functioning of the global economy, from which they derive every essential of life except for air (but most definitely including clean water, the lack of which kills almost as many people around the world TODAY as everything else combined). This is gradually changing; the world is becoming more decentralized financially and otherwise. But we are still a long, long way off from a time in which most people can have food and clean water without first having money and jobs, and, hence, at least some, at least indirect, access to the world financial system.
Nonaggression works!
The National Post has an excellent graphic of the worlds nuclear stockpile that helps to put things into perspective.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
Many wars take place because of a mistaken consideration of relative military strength. There is a level of deterrence that even a megalomaniac cannot ignore. And while a rational man can be deterred by even one nuclear weapon, we cannot know at any particular time what level of deterrence will be necessary for a particular irrational man or govenment. I believe we are getting uncomfortably close to a level that will not deter a mad regime like North Korea. Well meaning people can kill you too.
E Proelio Veritas.
I don't think that there is a fundamental disagreement on reducing nuclear warhead counts not just in the United States and Russia, only the process. The nations need to reduce their warhead counts together to ensure that the overall count goes down. Otherwise, the fear is that if one nation does it unilaterally, the other won't giving them an advantage and less incentive to reduce their warhead count. The Russians in particular are very sensitive to this: they really want to reduce their warhead count due to financial costs, but politically it would be impossible unless the United States does it in lockstep as well. Similar sentiments are in the United States, particularly amongst defense hawks.
That being said, the other concern is China: once the warhead count gets down to about 1,000 - 1,500, there's fear that the Chinese might actually accelerate their warhead production to put them on a level playing field with the United States and Russia. When the warhead differential was massive, the Chinese never bothered trying to compete because they were too far behind. However, once each nation's warhead count gets lower, down to a level the Chinese could reach reasonably, there is a good chance that they'll build more. If that unnerves either the US or Russia, and they start reactivating warheads out of fear the Chinese are trying to overtake them, the other would have to respond. Therefore, once you start getting to a lower level, you need to get the Chinese involved to prevent that sort of escalation.
or simple. For the better part of 50 years, there have been two real nuclear powers - the US and USSR/Russia. Not only the number of warheads, but the variety and quantity of systems to deliver those warheads served as a deterrent, not against each other, but against others in the world trying to compete. The most notable, China, has maintained a good sized force but did not see it in their interests in trying to catch up, let alone surpass, the US/USSR totals (and they could only rely upon ground based missiles for delivery). As the US/Russia totals plummet, it becomes strategically more advantageous for a country like China, and perhaps others down the road, to catch up.
Second, and equally important, is that with cuts in warheads come decisions about how to deploy the remaining warheads. Will there be enough left to justify bombers? Ground based ICBMs? Or will all (or most) of the force be at sea? This has signifcant ramifications on stability. The less visible the force, the more likely the adversary (Russia, China, whomever) are to see the warheads as offensive, first strike weapons. Bomber bases and even silo sites provide a degree of early warning that is now lost. The use 'em or lose 'em scenario will now gain far more attention in a time of increasing tensions.
Nuclear weapons are here to stay - the genie is out of the bottle for good and it is fantasy to consider a world without them. Rather than spending an inordinate amount of time and effort on debates (in and out of governemnt) on the number and composition of nuclear forces, efforts should instead be focused on securing the supply chains and warheads from theft, abuse, or misuse. In particular, countries like Pakistan and India need to have the best PAL's (the "lock" on the weapon) possible and I fear it is those countries that present the biggest risks of a nuclear event, not the US, Russia or even China.
Note that Obama's cuts are not really about saving money money. After all, he'd save vastly more by limiting entitlements and social programmes (the unfunded liabilities being promised completely dwarf even the current US deficit). The cuts also are not because the nukes aren't needed, they are needed for decades to come and for unseen threats in the next 50 years. The cuts are all purely ideologically based on Obama's (flawed) world view. Sadly, his supporters don't want to face the truth about his intentions to remake America by first breaking it by overspending and weakening its traditional strengths. Obama wants to unilaterally disarm and surrender the US to the world. He's already abandoned many allies. The world is about to get very chaotic as a result of a lack of strong leadership from secular democracies lead by the US.
Lol, you sir are clearly on crack. He is not actually that different to Bush was when you look at his actions.
In four years time he will be out of office and the US will be no different. You will still be spending more on your military than any other country in the world. You will still be allied with Europe. Israel will still be around, and the US will still be giving them just as much aid (http://journalistsresource.org/studies/international/conflicts/u-s-foreign-aid-to-israel-2012-congressional-report). The US will still have troops all over the world acting as policemen.
The only difference seems to be that he wants rich people to contribute slightly more in taxes to pay for this instead of taking the shortfall from schemes like Medicare designed to help poor people. As to whether this is a good idea or not is a different matter, but either way it will make precious little difference to anyone not in either extreme.
The biggest threat to the US is actually if the US economy tanks due to tax rises hitting the middle class and taking a huge dent out of consumer spending. The problem is that some people seem to think this would be a good idea to scare the country into voting republican. They think things like this as the very rich do not suffer as much in recessions as the middle class and the poor do.
China will take at least 10 years, maybe longer to build up a large enough military to be a serious challenge to the US. They are just too far behind at present with their one piddly aircraft carrier they bought from Russia anyway.
I dont read
China a threat? They hold 1/4 of the external treasury bonds.!! (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt)....USA is flowing billions of $ to China to buy their products and the chinese cheap labor keeps the phones and tablets prices low in USA....there is no economic reason to act. It's just big money....no ideologies involved. Iran? No way...it's much better for the big money laundry scheme to keep an enemy alive than destroying him....where do you think all the money for the cold war had gone if the USSR had been destroyed?? trillions of taxpayers $ now are in hands of family and friends of private defense corporations....and they must keep the faucet flowing!!...a new spa in the alps, condos in big cities, a 300 acre vineyard in Italy (Ferrari included).... "see your taxes at work!"
It is too complicated for a mulit-player scenario when martyrdom is considered a viable end state.
Global thermonuclear ad hominem, anyone?
China sits on the sidelines saying "Yes, both of you, please dispose of all your nuclear weapons."
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Just because I don't speak to you directly doesn't mean you're blind, deaf or dumb.
Russia & the U.S. initiated an incredibly expensive arms race based on fear, uncertainty and doubt. Both now stand to benefit significantly from a reduction of nuclear force. We still devote too many resources; time & money to maintenance of these weapons, supporting infrastructure, manpower, training and security. The discussion has been fairly open in this country, and the security concerns about Russia's nuclear arsenal have been openly addressed in the Western press.
China's leaders aren't stupid, and they don't need us to tell them there's a trade-off between pea-shooters and commerce. If we're scaling back, they may not feel the need to scale up as much.
The biggest threat to the US is actually if the US economy tanks due to tax rises hitting the middle class and taking a huge dent out of consumer spending. The problem is that some people seem to think this would be a good idea to scare the country into voting republican. They think things like this as the very rich do not suffer as much in recessions as the middle class and the poor do.
Please note I'm not from the US. While taxing the "middle class" for little appreciable gain indeed problematic the real problem is as I stated - approximately 66 trillion in unfunded liabilities if the entitlements programmes are kept as they are. I agree with you that the Republicans are pretty much indistinguishable from the Democrats in terms of leadership failure. The Libertarians seem to make more sense, but there is a danger that they go past small government and lower taxes into total lassez faire deregulation (which is bad for common people and smaller businesses). The solutions are not easy but it is clear that the Big Government (and associated huge and growing spending) of the Democrats is the worst position of the lot.
In four years time he will be out of office and the US will be no different.
In four years he will be out of office but the US will be different. Already the Obama Administration has changed the World greatly - for the worse. Most Americans aren't really aware of the complete disaster of Benghazi and what its apparent causes were - and the compliant media doesn't hold Hiliary's feet to the fire for her utter incompetence (and that of the State Department). It also doesn't call Hilliary up of her total selling out of the Constitutional First Amendment by co-sponsoring UN HRC 16/18. It is clear for the current Administration that the US Constitution is a nuisance that should be neutered through new laws (Obama destroyed the Fifth Amendment with the NDAA - which his Administration forced the drafters to remove protections for US citizens [according to Senator Levine], and then he lied about "his reservations"; as I mentioned they neutered the First Amendment; and now they are after the Second). This may be news to you, as I said the media is complicit in covering up the sins of this Administration because they believe in its agenda (a Republican president doing the same stuff would have been impeached already). Am I a Republican? no, but I believe that they are far more sensible on economics and foreign policy than the Democrats. The damage being done by the Obama Administration (*accelerating* overspending, withdrawal from leading global alliances, and refusal to take a moral stance and promote Enlightenment Freedoms around the World [Obama's shameful actions in 2009 at the time of the Green Revolution and his ouster of Mubarak to promote the anti-liberty Muslim Brotherhood will mark him in history as an even worse president than Jimmy Carter - even if his supporters are so smitten they can't see it yet; you have to judge the action by the consequences, not by the ideals that made you do it]).
China will take at least 10 years, maybe longer to build up a large enough military to be a serious challenge to the US.
But that challenge will happen. The US is now cutting back existing units (costly, but a tiny fraction of those unfunded entitlement liabilities I mentioned) and will take a decade to rebuild them even if it started now (which it won't). Meanwhile, China appears to be working on building several more carriers based on an indigenous design (using the bought carrier to shake out bug in carrier operation). While China may always have fewer carriers, it almost certainly will have *local* numerical parity (or even superiority) in any conflict. That will make any future war with China uncertain, and very bloody even if the US came out on top [note: such a war will be almost entirely naval and air, ground forces don't factor much in the likely Pacific combat scenarios]. So, the fact that Obam
Sorry but the US gov has a poor record on the truth.
And the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, North Koreans...they all have sterling reputations when it comes to the truth, eh? Nobody is claiming the US is perfect, but exactly who do you want as the top superpower if not the US? And no, you don't get the utopian fantasy where there is no superpower because that never happens. Someone *always* fills that power vacuum.
I realize it's popular and cool to blame the US for everything that's wrong in the world today, but have you ever stopped to consider what things might be like with one of the more unsavory superpowers (or budding superpowers) running the show? It sure doesn't seem like you have.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Sorry but the US gov has a poor record on the truth.
That true. But your position seems to be to do nothing and let the enemies of liberty do as they will? it's hard to know whether that position is greater in terms of cowardice or stupidity. The enemies of freedom are getting increasingly active, if you care to look (most funded by Saudi or Iranian petrodollars). Doing nothing will not make the world a better place - despite the lies you are being told. The US is morally right to use force of arms to destroy tyrants (Saddam) and jihadis (Taliban and Al Qaeda). You might like to lie down and become a dhimmi, but the rest of us don't.
By paying my taxes, I'm threatening to kill millions of children and other innocent persons if their government does something really bad. This is wrong on the face of it. I'm living with deterrence (mutual assured destruction) even though it clearly is wrong because to me right now it seems the least among evils. But we must minimize the threat. How many nuclear warheads does the United States need to deter any attacker? Probably a few hundred. Enough to kill any attacking leadership and neutralize their military. Beyond that is crazy. Kudos to President Obama for staying on course with this, even though he's being too cautious at least he's moving.
China is likely rapidly increasing their stockpile to bring it inline with the US and Russia. According to this diagram they are still quite far behind. Even if the US removes 1000 warheads, they will still be far behind. If that matters or not in the end is another argument entirely.
If you never go to war, then the draft doesn't force you to die in some unjust war.
Learn to love Alaska
(US + Russia) = China *100.
US - reductions = 4 * China
Russia - reductions = China * 4
What was the complaint?
Learn to love Alaska
You're right but if you don't trust them why should you trust the US government? They're all self serving and blowing money on unncessary things that make them look bad ass than helping their citizens.
That's great if the public is on your side and opposes the war, but not so much otherwise; especially if it gets to the point where a draft is necessary. Whatever the case, I'm quite against the idea of the government treating you like a slave in that manner.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
So you are against "slavery" not "war". If you said what you meant in the first place, rather than lying for the "easier" argument then others wouldn't misunderstand your position. The question was about Switzerland's draft, and you mentioned not dying for a "bad" cause in a foreign war, which the Swiss don't generally do, your response was a non sequitur. And now you say you don't even object to that specifically, but it was a manifestation of your "real" complaint, against slavery.
Learn to love Alaska
If you said what you meant in the first place
I said I'm against the draft from the very beginning. I consider it as the government taking ownership over your body and treating you essentially as a slave. At any rate, regardless of what I may have mistakenly said or what you may have misinterpreted, why is your first reaction to assume I was lying?
your response was a non sequitur.
What? I just wanted to make my opposition to the draft clear. I did exactly that, but I wasn't talking about the Swiss specifically.
And now you say you don't even object to that specifically
What, you mean people dying it bad wars? I object to that and the draft.
I meant that one reason I consider drafts to be morally wrong is because the government can force people to fight in 'unjust' wars. Maybe that's what you were referring to? I'm against drafts in every country, so that was just a general comment against drafts.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
If you never go to war, then the draft doesn't force you to die in some unjust war.
Were you just referring to Switzerland? That was probably it. Well, my comment was about drafts in general, as I said.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
The damage being done by the Obama Administration (*accelerating* overspending, withdrawal from leading global alliances, and refusal to take a moral stance and promote Enlightenment Freedoms around the World [Obama's shameful actions in 2009 at the time of the Green Revolution and his ouster of Mubarak to promote the anti-liberty Muslim Brotherhood will mark him in history as an even worse president than Jimmy Carter - even if his supporters are so smitten they can't see it yet; you have to judge the action by the consequences, not by the ideals that made you do it]).
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Mubarak was ousted by the people of Egypt taking to the streets and protesting against him en-mass. He had precious little public support and was going to lose the next election anyway (actually, he said himself he was not even going to bother standing for election).
While it is inconvenient for the US to lose Egypt as a loyal ally there was precious little Obama could do about it without trying to subvert the will of the Egyptian people and install a dictatorship. If a country chooses leaders we in the west do not support, we have to respect that decision.
What the US needs is strong leadership.
Personally I do not think I need defending from China or anyone else by the US. I have never met anyone outside america who does. We in the rest of the world do not get any say in the US leadership, so they should stay the hell out of our business.
The world doesn't need weak "beta-male" Obama apologizing to tyrants for the liberties the US has (as he shamefully did in Cairo), it doesn't need a thoroughly incompetent Secretary of State (Hilliary, whose chief assistant is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood - the same organization whose ultimate goal is to overthrow the US and the West) followed by another weak beta-male one. It is clear the US doesn't believe in itself anymore, so why should anyone else? The US should be standing up in the World saying it believes in the liberties in its Constitution, and not apologizing for its citizens when they exercise those rights (the "Innocence of Muslims" was mostly factually correct, may have been offensive to Muslims, but the author should have been protected under the Constitution - instead he was hounded by his own Government for exercising his Constitutional right). Yes, this sounds like a rant. Actually it is not, it just happens to be the facts as seen from outside the Matrix. If one can disprove these apparent facts with counter-evidence then I'm all ears.
I don't really know very much about Hilary Clinton being tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, but it sounds like the ravings of a paranoid lunatic and you did not actually post anything backing this up. If you want counter-evidence then try posing some evidence of your own first.
As to the innocence of muslims guy, I think you may have a point. To be honest though I do not really care since I am not a US citizen and consider it an internal issue. I don't really have any great desire to watch it, any more than I want to learn to sing the Koran in Arabic. I was far more disturbed by the death threats against Salmon Rushdie many years ago since that obviously had artistic merit rather than just some crap film designed to promote hatred.
Please note I'm not from the US.
Are you Israeli? It's just a random guess but I notice from another post you made you are worried about Sharia Law in Europe. I always find the idea of that preposterous since we have far to long and established traditions of drinking alcohol as part of our culture. There is about a 0% chance of us all becoming teetotal, especially here in the UK where I come from.
The only people in Europe who carp on about things like Sharia Law are morons like Geert Wilders who are just making it all up in order to try and get elected.
I dont read
Thanks for your post. I don't know if you know the content of Obama's speech in Cairo, or his actions in reserving place in the front row for the then-banned Muslim Brotherhood, but his actions were a clear sell-out of ally Mubarak. It was disgusting. The US had many other options than simply installing Islamists in power. They could have assisted in a transition and promoted secular democratic forces (which instigated the revolution and the Brotherhood now suppress). So I disagree with your conclusion. The US could have done a much better job.
Here's a link to an Egyptian source crowing about how they have Muslim Brotherhood members inside the White House: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates
This should have been front page news around the World, but wasn't. Senator Bachmann called for an investigation of Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the White House but was pooh-poohed, yet her points were real. You can find more information by googling Frank Gaffney's site http://www.muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/
I also highly recommend any of Stephen Coughlin's excellent videos on YouTube outlining the Islamist doctrine. Note that the Obama Administration have done a complete purge of anyone giving analysis of the Islamist/OIC strategy (and Sharia legal basis for jihad) because it runs counter to their (leftist) narrative. eg. see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6lmUlT38_U
This is why the World is losing against the form of Islamism that matters, 'cultural jihad' (not the terrorism, but the progressive long-term islamicization of culture).
That should be enough references to get you started. Come back to me if you'd like more.
Are you Israeli? It's just a random guess but I notice from another post you made you are worried about Sharia Law in Europe. I always find the idea of that preposterous since we have far to long and established traditions of drinking alcohol as part of our culture. There is about a 0% chance of us all becoming teetotal, especially here in the UK where I come from.
That's a bit racist, don't you think? I'm a native New Zealander actually. I just happen to be paying attention to what is going on. Unfortunately formerly great news outfits in the UK like the BBC have now dropped neutral journalism and show a huge leftist bias in the articles they choose to publish (and more importantly, the news events they choose not to publish). I understand how people in the UK would miss the information that matters given the selection bias of your mainstream media. Were you aware that 87 Sharia courts now operate in Britian. One law for Muslims (in certain matters) and one for other Britons. Were you aware that most school canteens now only serve halal meat? It is funny you talk about the drinking culture, especially when videos like this "Muslim Patrol" are emerging with increasing regularity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw2w7ACogaY
Yes, it is just some idiots. The interesting thing is the police do nothing and the politicians do not comment that it is an unacceptable affront to Enlish liberties. The trend will continue downwill I'm afraid.
The only people in Europe who carp on about things like Sharia Law are morons like Geert Wilders who are just making it all up in order to try and get elected.
Wilders is an opportunist for sure. Doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong. I suggest you take a megaphone and repeat the phrase "Europe will never have Sharia Law" and so so in Birmingham, Malmo or Marsailles. Take out life insurance and please make me the beneficiary. Even if you survive, how many politicians (except for Geert Wilders) do you think would stand up for your righ
Were you aware that 87 Sharia courts now operate in Britian (sp).
Those have absolutely zero legal power in any of the 3 UK legal systems and only work because all parties agree to it due to their faith. It's no different than settling out of court. A sharia court could not order someone to be stoned to death here without all involved being arrested for murder.
A sharia court could not order someone to be stoned to death here without all involved being arrested for murder.
Take a step back and listen to how wrong that is. No matter what the faith of anyone is, no one should be stoned for murder in the 21st Century. The Sharia courts are promoting discrimination, one set of laws for Muslims, another for dhimmi Britons. The goal should be that *all* British citizens are subject to the same laws and have the same rights and responsibilities. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights should apply to everyone and not the (OIC) Cairo Declaration of Human Rights (which basically says you have fsck all). The goal should be to have different cultures converge on Enlightenment values for everyone - yet this is the exact opposite of what is happening in Britain - and in your apparently well meaning but incredibly misguided way you agree with the institutionalisation of divisive and discriminatory systems based on belief. In the long term it doesn't help the Muslims and doesn't help non-Muslims either. It is cultural relativism that allows such muddle thinking, but this relativism is wrong on a fundamental level. Enlightenment culture is superior to Islamic ideology (which is, at its core, both politicaly totalitarian and fundamentally evil). People talk about "reforming Islam" but they refused to see the truth of the matter - rather than reform Islam simply enforce the superior laws and liberties of Enlightenment culture on all people in Britain - without discrimination as to race, gender, orientation or creed. If you want Sharia you can go live in Saudi, Iran or Afghanistan. Stop being a pussy and stand up for Enlightenment liberties and freedoms. It is morally right to do so.