Iran with Nukes


Let’s Turn Colorado RED in 2012!


Show everyone that you want
Colorado to be a RED state in 2012!





Capitalist @ ConservativeShir


February 18, 2012

Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong. *Ronald Reagan*

Iran with Nukes

Barack Obama from all appearances is a well-dressed man, modest and neat. But he exhibits certain postures and behaviors that betray a more tawdry side. He often looks like a man willing to throw out his values, and throw off American’s security, in order to please the crowd—in this case the crowd of foreign countries with interests that run counter to ours. Considering the current state of international affairs, the emergence of nuclear regimes like North Korea, China, and Iran, and the decade’s long peeling away of America’s existing nuclear capabilities, one might regard the Obama Administration’s proposal to further cut our nuclear arsenal by another 80% to be a very dangerous striptease. 

The Associated Press reported on February 15, 2012, that Barack Obama is considering a plan that would reduce the nation’s inventory of nuclear warheads to around 300, down from its present 1,790. The guidelines within the New START treaty require that number to shrink to 1,550 within 6 years of its implementation, which is still significantly more than the 300 mentioned in the AP report.  These numbers may look impressive on their own, if one holds to the idea that 300 nukes are sufficient to blow up the world.  But the United States’ nuclear arsenal is not designed to “blow up the world,” but rather a deterrent which would prevent madmen and rogue regimes from blowing up the world.  The United States’ nuclear arsenal is a tool of peace, so why would the Administration strip away a powerful and effective safeguard against nuclear attack that we have been building and maintaining for decades?

Army General Martin Dempsey testified before the House Armed Services Committee that the president is considering a reduction of up to 80% of currently deployed nuclear weapons, but gave no reason why this proposal is coming from the Obama Administration at this time.  One may speculate that this is another budget-driven cut in defense spending.  And it’s true that it is very expensive to maintain the nuclear arsenal, and replace obsolete components and systems as needed.  But that’s not a cut and dried argument since to remove, transport, and dispose of some 1,200 nukes would, in both the short-term and long-term, would be expensive as well.  There are no pressing treaties, old or new, that require the United States at this time to further denude its nuclear capabilities and gut its arsenal.  So one is left wondering, why would the president do something that reverses the country’s military readiness and leaves its people more defenseless and exposed?

The timing of this proposal, as well as the highly unpredictable and constantly shifting status of other nuclear nations are troubling as well.  Since 1966 America’s nuclear arsenal has decreased from over 32,000 nuclear weapons to around 1,500(about a 95% decrease) today.  Conversely the USSR had a peak number of around 45,000 in 1990 just prior to its collapse.  Present-day Russia has continued to build its strategic and tactical nuclear programs.  The actual numbers of weapons that currently exist in Russia’s nuclear arsenal are hard to pin down and estimates range from 2,000 to 8,000.  Present-day Russia and the former Soviet Union have loomed for many years as the United States’ greatest nuclear adversaries.  While the mutual, though unequal, disarmament process has gone on between the two nuclear superpowers, other nations have surfaced as nuclear powers, some presenting even greater dangers to the West than that of the Russians.  France, The U.K., South Africa, and, India, Israel (though unofficially a nuclear state) are allies whose nuclear capabilities are not problematic for the United States.  But North Korea, China, and Pakistan, have either governments, or governmental and/or social factions which have declared themselves enemies to the United States of America.  Iran is believed to have evolving nuclear capabilities, and their ability to launch a nuke in the immediate future is a real possibility.  Iran is the one regime who has openly declared their hostilities towards Israel and the West.  This appears to many a clear declaration of Iran’s willingness to use nukes, once operational, in an open attack on other nations.

With no compelling rationale for the Obama Administration to announce a dramatic and unilateral cutback in America’s nuclear arsenal, it seems increasingly possible that this is another attempt by the President to win favor on the international stage through appeasement and the abatement of our military vigor.  Nuclear disarmament is not new, and the United States has kept its promises by gradually dismantling and disposing of its nuclear weapons for 5 decades.  But the February 15th announcement by the White House shines a light on a more disturbing aspect of the nuclear disarmament dance.  Obama is doing a strip tease on the world stage, and he has very little left to peel away and throw to the audience before he leaves the country completely stripped of deterrent nuclear capabilities.  Any grown-up knows what crosses the minds of those watching a dancer slowly peel their defenses down to nothing.  A strip tease like this one tempts people with bad intentions to do very bad things.  When those bad intentions include nukes and a naked target, it can’t end well.

By Marjorie Haun 2/18/12

  1. Yes, exactly. And, will you please explain to me how your “Secessionist Club” will make the USA stronger?

    People who support secession aren’t pro-USA conservatives. They aren’t even conservatives at all. They are Statists. They are every bit as evil and socialistic as Obama. They just want their socialism to be implemented, without interference, by their particular State not by Washington.

    Now, you run along and wash your mouth out with soap, little girl. I don’t want to hear another word about Secession out of you!

    • Have you taken your multivitamin today my dear? You sound a little cranky.

    • Cold blooded

      What kind of obama crack are you smoking? That is like saying each country should not be sovereign. Before pulling your left wing slam and smear campaign at least make an argument how secessionists are socialist. Personally, I am not a secessionist but at least, as an American and as someone who has been shot at, by people who do not want to see America, I will defend their views to the death.

      Going around taking pot-shots at people who do not agree with you is as low as a child molester or a rat in my book. Yup. I said it. As low as a child molester. Why don’t you go and express your ideas in Egypt? How about Syria? I hear its nice and open minded there.

      • Yes, isn’t it interesting how Mr. Gai, who claims to be of the Tea Party, has a problem with the opinions and insights of others. I thought the Tea Party supported things like freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and The Declaration of Independence which is very clear about the right to revolution.

    • Rambo Lybrand

      So Jonathon says you cant be a secessionist and be a conservative but wants to shut down reagangirls free speech….. lmao!!!! You are the one that sounds live a nazi Mr Gal.

    • Ginni Selby

      Mr. Gal: This isn’t about secession, it’s about our national defense. I don’t even know where you came up with such a ludicrous idea! Especially since not a word was said about it. The only thing Reagangirl said was that we shouldn’t be disarming any more. This is not a statist, view, but the view of a patriot who wants to keep this country strong.

      As far as washing one’s mouth out with soap, you would do well to do so yourself and study the Englis language as well so you can understand what a patriot is trying to say.

    • Fruitlooper

      Since last I checked, this was Reagan girls site, so why don’t you and your little hating self run along. And don’t come back

    • Dan

      You are implying that the War Against the States was socialism? hahahahahahaha

  2. “Conservatives” want to “Conserve The Constitution” and “Conserve the Union” not tear it apart with secession.

  3. The damage to your brand is done. I will never see your essays in the same light again, after that Secession article.

  4. Reaper63

    @Jonathan: I fail to see what you’re refering to as the “secessionist club” in the above article. Conservatives want to conserve the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. There are various means by which this can be accomplished, and there is some room for debate there. However, the Constitution explicitly states that powers not specifically granted to the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved for the states and the people. The 14th Amendment was designed to apply the Bill of Rights (paticularly the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th to the recently freed slaves) to all the people in the US, and does take away some of the 10th Amendment’s grant of state authority. The 14th Amendment was not properly enforced, and is still strongly infringed upon by some states. The Federal Government has been exceeding its authority granted by the 14th Amendment in many other way. The abuse of the “interstate commerse” clause that everyone from the EPA to HHS now touts as their root authority is particularly notable. States should have more authority than they currently do, and to say so is not “secessionist” but common sense!

    • Reaper63, I don’t believe Mr. Gai read “Nuclear Striptease.” He is on a tear and lashing out mindlessly. But your understanding of my point of view is excellent. We cannot have a “Union” without a Constitutional form of government as its anchor. There is nothing in the world that can keep two so opposite points of view on government and liberty together in a peaceful coexistence.

  5. I couldn’t help but notice that ReageanGirl used a lot of facts, figures, data, and research to form her opinion…
    and I’m not sure what JLG’s opinion is based on. Sorry Mr. Gal, but your attacks are nothing more than sweeping generalizations with a nice dose of ad hominem added for good measure. Marj gave good data as to why she believes what she believes. Either refute the data, or the interpretation, but saying “nuh-uh!” isn’t good enough.

  6. […] NUCLEAR STRIPTEASE « National Defense « 2012 Elections « […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search ReaganGirl
Newest Posts
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The Truth About Islam
Networked Blogs

Hi, guest!


WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera