Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Republicans oppose any cuts in nuclear weapons

World Feb. 16, 2012 - 06:48AM JST ( 36 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

36 Comments

2

nukeprotestFeb. 16, 2012 - 07:49AM JST

Americans in general are a paranoid lot, but especially on the right. While other countries have experienced wars on their own soil in recent memory, and more terrorist attacks too, none are as fearful as those in the very safe land of America. Its quite a paradox.

I wonder if these Republicans are less concerned about Syria and Egypt, as if nukes will do anything to help there, or more worried about being unprepared for an invasion from outer space?
3

paulinusaFeb. 16, 2012 - 08:51AM JST

The Republicans mentioned are grandstanding and most likely know next to nothing about the appropriate level of nuclear weapons.
2

tkoind2Feb. 16, 2012 - 09:42AM JST

One more reason that we should be concerned about the GOP having control over US politics. I am not a fan of either party, but at least the DEMs support reductions in weapons. Something the world needs more than more BS posturing by old conservative hawks.
-3

WolfpackFeb. 16, 2012 - 09:55AM JST

The US has already dramatically reduced it's nuclear weapons down to only about 1,500 from a high of over 20,000 during the height of the Cold War. It's stupid to give up such an important deterrent asset by cutting down to only a few hundred as Obama wants to do. Actually, he wants to eliminate America's nuclear weapons altogether. Meanwhile, China is building up their nuclear arsenal and already contemplating their own Cold War rivalry with the US. Obama and other Liberals have this naive' conceit that if the US gives up all of it's nuclear weapons the rest of the world will cheer and do the same. It is an idiotic viewpoint that just invites a military challenge. Obama has already begun a vast reduction in US conventional forces. Following suit with unilateral nuclear disarmament is a huge mistake. This dolt is the worst president in history.
0

plasticmonkeyFeb. 16, 2012 - 10:08AM JST

such a step would encourage other nations to advance their nuclear programs

So by that rationale, if Iran decides not to build a nuclear aresenal, other states in the region will. Makes no sense whatsoever. The history of the bomb is a history of proliferation causing more proliferation.

Besides, even with 300 nuclear weapons the United States is assured of being able to wipe out life on planet earth. How much of a deterrent is really necessary?

These Republicans know this, but for the sake of Joe Nascar they figure it's politically expedient to play tough guy. For congressmen like "Buck" McKeon, talk like this also comforts his defense contractor friends in his home state of California.
1

tkoind2Feb. 16, 2012 - 10:18AM JST

Wolfpack. Come on, no one is talking about absolute unilateral disarmament. That is clearly a misrepresentation of the position of the current president and is typical of the vitriolic non-sense spewed by the right wing in the US these days.

Reducing the number of nukes on planet earth is a good idea. Period. We don't need them and they pose too great a danger to the world.

Take it from one who lived through much of the Cold War, there will be far more than enough weapons left after any reduction plans to reduce the planet to an uninhabitable wasteland. Which should make all your hawks very happy.
-1

plasticmonkeyFeb. 16, 2012 - 10:20AM JST

Sorry, my mistake. Buck actually supports the president on this one. As would Reagan.
2

plasticmonkeyFeb. 16, 2012 - 10:24AM JST

@Wolfpack

This dolt is the worst president in history.

Reagan called for the abolition of "all nuclear weapons". Does that make him a dolt, too?
3

tkoind2Feb. 16, 2012 - 10:27AM JST

plasticmonkey. There are those out there who just hate Obama on principle. Even if his policies are in line with conservative icons like Ronald Reagan. It is sad and I think says a lot about just how unready America is to be truly equal across all races, religions and belief systems.

Maybe some day that hatred can be replaced with more pragmatic concern for the well being of the country and the future regardless of the party involved.
-1

smithinjapanFeb. 16, 2012 - 12:21PM JST

So what is the plan of these Republicans to reduce the debt? They don't want tax increases to the rich, obviously, and want to keep a ridiculously large nuclear arsenal. So what's they're plan?
0

m5c32Feb. 16, 2012 - 12:26PM JST

So what's they're plan?

Their plan appears to be scaremongering and then pandering to those fears. It's not as if RReagan wasn't about cutting nuclear arsenals and not as if GW senior didn't drawdown the armed forces. No, no way. Obviously, reductions can only happen on their terms. Anyone else's terms, pretty much by default are not the right way.
-2

SuperLibFeb. 16, 2012 - 12:28PM JST

Reducing the number makes sense from the standpoint of cost, maintenance, and goodwill. Obviously there is a tipping point where reducing too much can harm defense capabilities. That exact point is what we should be debating, not keeping a bloated system or eliminating it altogether.
0

kaketamaFeb. 16, 2012 - 02:24PM JST

If I'm correct, NPT stipulates nuclear nations to reduce the number of their nuclear weapons. But the US, Russia and China seem not to reduce the number of weapons. The US have accused Iran of not observing NPT or somthings, even though they also don't observe. Funny.

Pointing to the growing number of trouble spots, from Iran to Syria to Egypt, members of the House Armed Services Committee said any significant cuts would undermine the U.S. ability to deter aggression.

There is no need for the US to intervene those things with its weapons, I think. What those Republicans said sounds much more preposterous for me.
-1

anglootakuFeb. 16, 2012 - 03:32PM JST

More funding for Weapons of Mass Destruction
2

sakuralaFeb. 16, 2012 - 03:57PM JST

I must admit I don't know much about American politics. From what I have seen, the Republicans are against healthcare for the masses and are for weapons of mass destruction. Am I correct in this understanding? If so, it seems like priorities are a little skewed unless they are aiming to bring down the global population...
-2

SushiSake3Feb. 16, 2012 - 04:59PM JST

No, no, I'm with the Republicans on this one.

1,550 deployed strategic warheads is clearly nowhere near enough to threaten insurgents around the world.

If you assume after America's withdrawl from Iraq and Afgnaistan that the terrorists will fan out across the globe, Republicans will see demand for more warheads to target more cities.

That's just necessary, no two ways about it.

How to pay for more warheads? I say do what Republicans have been striving for for years - slash Medicaid and Medicare to the bone and use the funds saved to boost the DoD's nuclear warhead budget. That's probaby a line item in the latest budget.

The old adage holds: "Too much is never enough."

Building up America's nuclear arsenal will also help promote world peace as the U.S. government will simply have to say to - for example - Libya: "Give up all your guns or we'll carpet bomb Tripoli."

Go GOP.
-3

SushiSake3Feb. 16, 2012 - 05:00PM JST

.....Libya: "Give up all your guns or we'll carpet bomb Tripoli WITH NUKES."
-3

SushiSake3Feb. 16, 2012 - 05:44PM JST

Got it - the GOP could just round up mobs of unemployed Americans and get them to build the nuclear warheads and delivery systems.

That will:

Reduce unemployment

Get more people off the streets and into the workforce

Boost tax income

Strengthen America.

Brilliant!

ROOOOOAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR!!!!!!! :-)
-1

unreconstructedFeb. 16, 2012 - 06:33PM JST

Buck actually supports the president on this one. As would Reagan.

Funny how often of late we see "Liberals" desperately invoking Reagan .
-1

unreconstructedFeb. 16, 2012 - 06:35PM JST

Sushisake3 is on record here saying how much he loathes America. His support of Obama on this is no surprise, only an embarrassment, if you are a Dem.
-1

unreconstructedFeb. 16, 2012 - 06:50PM JST

And two inches further down the World page is the headline

Iran unveils nuclear progress, defying U.S.-EU pressure

LOL
-1

sailwindFeb. 16, 2012 - 07:33PM JST

What a terrible article.

Congressional Republicans on Wednesday vowed to block the Obama administration from sharply cutting the U.S. nuclear force, calling potential reductions of as much as 80% in the number of deployed weapons “reckless lunacy.”

Only ONE Republican called it "reckless lunacy" and that was Rep. Trent Franks and that is his personal opinion. And the House Armed Services Committee consists of over 60 members with about 26 or 27 of them being Democrats. The article doesn't bother to mention that but does state................

Pointing to the growing number of trouble spots, from Iran to Syria to Egypt, members of the House Armed Services Committee said any significant cuts would undermine the U.S. ability to deter aggression.

Well which ones??? Members both Democratic and Republican or just Republican only? And the article only quotes Republicans, I'm sure if there was any actual real Democratic support for the reductions it would have mentioned or are we as readers just to assume that is the case?
0

SushiSake3Feb. 16, 2012 - 07:34PM JST

SushiSake - "Go GOP"

unreconstructed: "Sushisake3 is on record here saying how much he loathes America. **His support of Obama on this **is no surprise, only an embarrassment, if you are a Dem,"

Heh, the only embarassment here is you didn't bother to read (my post).

Yet another reason why conservatives should never be put in charge of a pet shop, let alone a country. :-)
1

MadvertsFeb. 16, 2012 - 08:28PM JST

"Funny how often of late we see "Liberals" desperately invoking Reagan ."

The only desperation I see, Oldest Buddy, is the Republican party, and its' one and only platfrom of "No".

A nuclear detterent is necassary, but stocking a reasonable amount is just common sense - which sadly seems an attribute non-existant from the GOP and the hardcore deciples of late.

Get ready for more of Mr Obama.
1

LagunaFeb. 16, 2012 - 10:21PM JST

Obama should mess with 'em by announcing plans to EXPAND the nuclear arsenal - then we'd see Republicans pile on him for massive waste. Just can't win with this crowd.
0

herefornowFeb. 16, 2012 - 11:01PM JST

Well what did the Tea Party types expect? They want to slash spending and are not willing to raise taxes on the wealthy, so this is the outcome. Simplistic thinking like that all too often leads to complicated consequences.
-1

DeploreFeb. 17, 2012 - 12:17AM JST

This IS lunacy. Without a sufficient number of nuclear weapons, how can the U.S. possibly maintain a credible nuclear umbrella? A nuclear umbrella which, by the way, has prevented a far far greater proliferations of nuclear weapons. Liberals are naive to the extreme if they think this is a good idea.
0

The Truth MattersFeb. 17, 2012 - 12:39AM JST

Of course republicans are against this. They are hypocrites and liars. They say they want smaller govt. This would be smaller govt. Apparently they no longer want what they want.
-2

DeploreFeb. 17, 2012 - 05:33AM JST

Of course republicans are against this. They are hypocrites and liars. They say they want smaller govt. This would be smaller govt. Apparently they no longer want what they want.

You know full well that it wasn't nuclear weapons that exploded the national deficit and landed us in a 15 trillion dollar debt. If anything, nuclear weapons have saved us money by preventing costly (not to mention bloody) wars with other nuclear armed powers.

Nuclear weapons have done more for peace than any other single invention in all of history. MAD must be maintained!
-1

Jared NormanFeb. 17, 2012 - 06:04AM JST

What they really need to do is get all 8 nuclear powers into the talks, reduce and eliminate nukes this way.
-1

plasticmonkeyFeb. 17, 2012 - 07:40AM JST

@unreconstructed

"Liberals" desperately invoking Reagan

It's not liberal doing the invoking. It's a way to point out the absurdity of the new GOP.
-1

DeploreFeb. 17, 2012 - 11:11AM JST

What they really need to do is get all 8 nuclear powers into the talks, reduce and eliminate nukes this way.

And what, bring back the conventional, general wars of the first half of the 20th century? Without nuclear weapons, WW3 would have happened by now.

Ultimately there is a fundamental disagreement between the two sides. One side wants to eliminate nuclear weapons altogether, while the other side argues that the cat is already out of the bag and nuclear weapon stockpiles must be maintained.
0

plasticmonkeyFeb. 17, 2012 - 11:34AM JST

Without nuclear weapons, WW3 would have happened by now.

That doesn't mean there aren't too many nukes. Again, how much of a deterrent do you need?

These Republicans are against reduction now simply because Obama is for it. They had no problem with Reagan's reductions, which highlights their hypocrisy (a point which some simply can't fathom).
0

Jared NormanFeb. 17, 2012 - 01:49PM JST

A world without nuclear weapons doesnt mean a war is going to break out.
0

DeploreFeb. 17, 2012 - 02:12PM JST

These Republicans are against reduction now simply because Obama is for it. They had no problem with Reagan's reductions, which highlights their hypocrisy (a point which some simply can't fathom).

But cutting it down to 300-400? That would represent a nearly 80% cut from current levels. Look, if this actually does make strategic, military sense then fine, I'm all for it. But what I cannot stomach is the thought that they're only talking about this for political reasons, or out of some sense of idealism.
0

plasticmonkeyFeb. 17, 2012 - 05:36PM JST

if this actually does make strategic, military sense then fine, I'm all for it.

Read the story again please. The 300-400 range is the lowest numbers in a range of options, all of which are being considered with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I don't think the military brass en masse are going to recommend something simply for political reasons.

The new Republicans seem not to respect much advice that comes from the Pentagon or active service members. Many Republicans didn't trust their recommendations about DADT, troop withdrawals from Iraq, women in combat, and now this.

They simply don't like Obama.