Putin arranges Obama visit to find out about flexibility offer

HiLo · Nov 14, 2012

Easy G (G²);61766256 said:
The defense shield is a big deal...

It's absolutely a big deal. If this is not handled with the utmost care, it risks unraveling an already stressed relationship with a world super power (Russia) who believes that the defense shield is being sold under false pretense to position missiles in striking distance of russia. They are right to be concerned. Look how we reacted when Russia started building up missiles in Cuba.

The breakdown of relations between Russia and the US over the defense shield would have lasting and global consequences and would reverberate throughout the middle east in unpredictable ways. There obviously could be other reasons to have "flexibility" but speculating the worst serves no positive purpose and at best is only speculation.

Sistrin · Nov 14, 2012

wing2000 said:
President Obama has never proposed unilaterial disarmament.

U.S. considers sharp cuts to nuclear force

"The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.

Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama's 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons."

Source: U.S. considers sharp cuts to nuclear force - CBS News

Obama pledges to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons

PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC, AND WASHINGTON President Obama vowed Sunday to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons from the planet, telling a cheering throng in Prague that the United States is ready to lead an international effort to reduce atomic arsenals and the threat they pose.

Source: Obama pledges to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons - Los Angeles Times

Obama vows to pursue further nuclear cuts with Russia

Acknowledging the United States has more warheads than necessary, Obama held out the prospect of new reductions in the U.S. arsenal as he sought to rally world leaders for additional concrete steps against the threat of nuclear terrorism.

"We can already say with confidence that we have more nuclear weapons than we need," Obama told students at South Korea's Hankuk University a few hours before a global nuclear security summit opened in Seoul.

....

"I firmly believe that we can ensure the security of the United States and our allies, maintain a strong deterrent against any threat, and still pursue further reductions in our nuclear arsenal," he said.

But another arms accord with Moscow will be a tough sell to U.S. conservatives who say Obama has not moved fast enough to modernize the U.S. strategic arsenal, a pledge he made in return for Republican votes that helped ratify the START treaty.

Source: Obama vows to pursue further nuclear cuts with Russia | Reuters

Obama Administration's Proposed Nuclear Weapons Cuts Attacked By House GOP

WASHINGTON 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 percent in the number of deployed weapons "reckless lunacy."

The most modest option under discussion would return the United States to a level not seen in more than half a century, when the Soviet Union and the U.S. pushed ahead in a Cold War nuclear arms race. The administration is weighing at least three options for lower total numbers, cutting to around 1,000 to 1,100, 700 to 800, or 300 to 400.

Source: Obama Administration's Proposed Nuclear Weapons Cuts Attacked By House GOP

Its Time for the U.S. To Finally Sign the Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

Early in his presidency, Obama voiced support for a test ban, saying in a 2009 address, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.

He is right: The United States needs to lead here. If we do not forgo the right to test our own vast arsenal, it is hypocritical to vilify North Korea for testing nuclear weapons or Iran for possibly trying to manufacture them. Of course, ratifying the CTBT would not guarantee that North Korea or Iran would respond appropriately. They probably wontat least not right away.

Source: Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: The U.S. should ratify it now. - Slate Magazine

Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

Source: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms - NYTimes.com

FISHER: Obamas deadly inaction on North Korean nuclear missiles

While foreign policy failed to rise to prominence during the election, the United States will not be able to escape the price of foreign policy failure. One crisis that started during President Obamas first term, which could explode during his second, is that of China's blatant contribution to a North Korean nuclear missile capability.

And what of the U.S. reaction, given that these missiles are primarily aimed at Americans? Once North Korea tests its new missiles, it can be assured that they, and/or their technology, will be sold to Iran, which then could reach all of Europe from defended bases in Central Iran.

The results of this inept policy are: China has not been punished for further enabling the nuclear missile capability of a terrorist state and WMD proliferator...

Source: FISHER: Obama's deadly inaction on North Korean nuclear missiles - Washington Times

So the President wants an 80 percent reduction in the US nuclear weapon inventory, has pledged to pursue the elemination of nuclear weapons, has stated the US needs to "lead" that effort, thinks we will be just fine without them, championed his "flexibility" to Putin, has ruled the US will not develope any new nuclear weapons, has limited when we will use them, and turns a blind eye to proliferation on the part of other nations.

In addition, any weapon is useless unless one has the will to use it.

You will probably get hung up on the word "unilateral", but read between the lines.

wing2000 said:
And with the exception of George W. Bush, every modern President has sought to reduce our nuclear weapons.

Agreed that over 12,000 was a bit much. But I would recomend Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "Warning to the West", and his comments on "bumper sticker arms control".

wing2000 · Nov 14, 2012

You will probably get hung up on the word "unilateral", but read between the lines.

...well yes....it is rather an important descriptor. Reading between the lines is rather a subjective exercise.

TeddyReceptus · Nov 14, 2012

NightHawkeye said:
Putin says "Come visit". Obama says, "when?" Putin: Obama Plans to Visit Russia | The Weekly Standard

"US President Barack Obama has confirmed plans to visit Russia at the invitation of his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, the Russian presidents spokesman said on Tuesday," the Russian outlet reports. "Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Obama made the statement when Putin called a second time to congratulate the US president on his reelection."

LOL ... who saw that coming so soon?

OH MY! What if Putin marshalls his mighty SOVIET ARMY and Obama capitulates and GIVES HIM CONTROL OF THE USA???

It could happen! Obama will swoon before Putin's awesome pectoral muscles and sculpted body and he will GIVE UP AMERICA.

We can't let Obama go there! Someone, please DISTRACT HIM!

If only someone would re-make the 80's flick "Red Dawn"!

OH NO! IT'S TOO LATE! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn_(2012_film)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Kok zhivut, udarnyiki!

Wolseley · Nov 14, 2012

HiLo said:
Hope they are negotiating space for work camps in Siberia, for all those who have signed secession petitions.

My, my---such vituperation and vitriol.

And yet, the leftists call us conservatives "haters".

We can't hold a candle to hatred like this. It's unbelievable.

TeddyReceptus · Nov 15, 2012

Wolseley said:
My, my---such vituperation and vitriol.

And yet, the leftists call us conservatives "haters".

We can't hold a candle to hatred like this. It's unbelievable.

Here I thought Conservatives were supposed to have a sense of humor. I suspect even Ronald Reagan would find you guys whiny and touchy!

NightHawkeye · Nov 15, 2012

TeddyReceptus said:
Here I thought Conservatives were supposed to have a sense of humor. I suspect even Ronald Reagan would find you guys whiny and touchy!

Hi, Teddy.

According to some liberals ... a winking smiley face is required to differentiate between a serious statement and humor.

HiLo · Nov 15, 2012

Oops. Didn't know I had to spell it out. Sheesh! I thought it was funny. Is this better, O' sensitive lurkers?

Gxg (G²) · Nov 15, 2012

HiLo said:
It's absolutely a big deal. If this is not handled with the utmost care, it risks unraveling an already stressed relationship with a world super power (Russia) who believes that the defense shield is being sold under false pretense to position missiles in striking distance of russia. They are right to be concerned. Look how we reacted when Russia started building up missiles in Cuba.

The breakdown of relations between Russia and the US over the defense shield would have lasting and global consequences and would reverberate throughout the middle east in unpredictable ways. There obviously could be other reasons to have "flexibility" but speculating the worst serves no positive purpose and at best is only speculation.

I would think the missle dynamic is almost moot since there are other forms of attack that are far more advanced..be it biological or even chemical or EMP and other things.

NightHawkeye · Nov 15, 2012

HiLo said:
Oops. Didn't know I had to spell it out. Sheesh! I thought it was funny. Is this better, O' sensitive lurkers?

HiLo · Nov 15, 2012

Easy G (G²);61772916 said:
I would think the missle dynamic is almost moot since there are other forms of attack that are far more advanced..be it biological or even chemical or EMP and other things.

I agree and I think Putin's fears are based in more emotion than facts. More so because he thinks like a tyrant, so he naturally thinks everyone else does too. But from Putin's perspective, it's fair to assume the missile defense system could cut down the arrival time of an undetected strike into Russia, significantly. Not to mention it's allies. It's difficult to use your weapons, even nuclear, if they or you have been destroyed before you can respond. I have no reason to believe the US has any intentions of doing such a thing, but Russia doesn't know that. Now Obama has the big task of either building trust and getting it done or letting Putin push him around and abandoning the project.

Sistrin · Nov 15, 2012

HiLo said:
Now Obama has the big task of either building trust and getting it done or letting Putin push him around and abandoning the project.

QFT

Gxg (G²) · Nov 15, 2012

HiLo said:
I agree and I think Putin's fears are based in more emotion than facts. More so because he thinks like a tyrant, so he naturally thinks everyone else does too. But from Putin's perspective, it's fair to assume the missile defense system could cut down the arrival time of an undetected strike into Russia, significantly. Not to mention it's allies. It's difficult to use your weapons, even nuclear, if they or you have been destroyed before you can respond. I have no reason to believe the US has any intentions of doing such a thing, but Russia doesn't know that. Now Obama has the big task of either building trust and getting it done or letting Putin push him around and abandoning the project.

Well, if Obama manages to ease fears, the other issue that'd need to be dealt with is the fact that people in America crying out for war with Russia or not treating them as an ally need to be addressed since folks in Russia are aware of that and it doesn't do well for healthy relations. On the same token, there's the reality of Russian immigrants coming over to the U.S and the ways people have been coming from all over the world to the U.S for development of their own goals - with Russia taking note of that and concerned with the ways others are more aware on some of the internal issues present in Russia. Last year, I did a research project with a Russian student whom I came to admire greatly for a variety of reasons/learned much from (as discussed here, if interested in what was said...and one can also go here to #93/here on some of the other issues with Russia ).

Putin arranges Obama visit to find out about flexibility offer

Newbie

We are such stuff as dreams are made on...

E pluribus unum

TeddyReceptus

Guest

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

TeddyReceptus

Guest

Work-in-progress

Newbie

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Work-in-progress

Newbie

We are such stuff as dreams are made on...

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency