US ends it's nuclear weapons program.

[David]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/06/obama.nuclear.weapons/index.html?hpt=T2

We'll be maintaining the nukes not slated for decommissioning by the new reduction treaty we're about to sign but otherwise the program is now kaput.

And as for the nukes we're keeping, we'll only use them on nations that have nukes themselves (in other words, we'll not be using them ).

I must say, I'm almost speechless. Definitely didn't see this coming.

 

[Delta]

All I have to say to that is:

Sick tits.

... that's a good thing.

 

[deanhills]

I see it as playing with words, and a typical political marketing speech. I don't see anything different from before. Has America in the last twenty years had to defend itself with nuclear missiles? Were nuclear missiles used in Iraq or Afghanistan? Surely as far as I can remember the nuclear missiles have only been there to create a balance of power and to defend the States against countries which could attack it with nuclear missiles. It is obvious that the United States would never defend itself with nuclear missiles against nations with no nuclear missiles. Just would not make any sense. So the speech is nothing new, and just states what has been practised for the most part over the last almost forty years.

 

[chuck schmidt]

I see it as playing with words, and a typical political marketing speech. I don't see anything different from before. Has America in the last twenty years had to defend itself with nuclear missiles? Were nuclear missiles used in Iraq or Afghanistan? Surely as far as I can remember the nuclear missiles have only been there to create a balance of power and to defend the States against countries which could attack it with nuclear missiles. It is obvious that the United States would never defend itself with nuclear missiles against nations with no nuclear missiles. Just would not make any sense. So the speech is nothing new, and just states what has been practised for the most part over the last almost forty years.

I was going to say the same thing in fewer words. Watch.

"Do you believe that is sincere?":giggle:
​

 

[deanhills]

I was going to say the same thing in fewer words. Watch.

"Do you believe that is sincere?":giggle:
​

Actually I did believe in the sincerity of your first statement, until I had to think what your question meant, and then I was not that sure any longer .... :unsure:

 

[chuck schmidt]

Actually I did believe in the sincerity of your first statement, until I had to think what your question meant, and then I was not that sure any longer .... :unsure:

Are we slipping? :giggle:

 

[deanhills]

Are we slipping? :giggle:

I'm sorry Chuck, I genuinely don't get it. Also not what "are we slipping" means. Maybe you can explain with specifics?

 

[chuck schmidt]

I'm sorry Chuck, I genuinely don't get it. Also not what "are we slipping" means. Maybe you can explain with specifics?

I meant I agree.

 

[deanhills]

I meant I agree.

OK. Good stuff :redface: