lostfan Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews This has probably been the biggest week of Obama's presidency so far - two major priorities within a few days of each other. It still needs 67 votes in the Senate but the vote probably won't be for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 If this gets held up...sigh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted March 26, 2010 Author Share Posted March 26, 2010 I honestly don't know why someone who is not a complete moron would not vote to ratify this treaty. They would need to give a reaaaaaaaaally good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 It came from Obama and its important. I would honestly be surprised if there isn't some amount of obstruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 It will get held up, treaties always do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 26, 2010 -> 06:33 PM) It will get held up, treaties always do. Yea. Like I have pending treaties with 90% of this website...but they never seem to go through. Mostly because they're all haters and against me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted March 27, 2010 Author Share Posted March 27, 2010 This kind of makes his Nobel Peace Prize look like less of a joke, though. They gave it to him mostly because of the "world without nuclear weapons" pledge before he'd actually done anything, so now at least he's done something to that end. Still, assuming the treaty actually does get ratified, we'd still have enough nukes on each end to destroy the world a couple of times over. They don't even have any tactical value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 worst.president.ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 09:18 AM) This kind of makes his Nobel Peace Prize look like less of a joke, though. They gave it to him mostly because of the "world without nuclear weapons" pledge before he'd actually done anything, so now at least he's done something to that end. Still, assuming the treaty actually does get ratified, we'd still have enough nukes on each end to destroy the world a couple of times over. They don't even have any tactical value. Even a "small" regional nuclear war could threaten the whole planet: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....cal-nuclear-war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted March 27, 2010 Author Share Posted March 27, 2010 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 10:36 AM) Even a "small" regional nuclear war could threaten the whole planet: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....cal-nuclear-war Yeah all that fallout, the effect on climate, and the radiation. An actual full-blown nuclear exchange with Russia though... yeesh. That'd probably reduce the population of both countries by about 90 or 95% within a couple of days (the area around Moscow would get hit harder than anywhere else in the world) and everybody else would be struggling to live. And then there's the rest of the world. I browsed the Yahoo comments (bad habit, almost nothing intelligent ever gets said there) and one of the first comments was "Obama has done nothing but weaken this country." lol... 1) um, no and 2) the U.S. and Russia are obligated to make a good faith effort to reduce their nuclear arsenals, any dumbass knows that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 09:45 AM) Yeah all that fallout, the effect on climate, and the radiation. An actual full-blown nuclear exchange with Russia though... yeesh. That'd probably reduce the population of both countries by about 90 or 95% within a couple of days (the area around Moscow would get hit harder than anywhere else in the world) and everybody else would be struggling to live. And then there's the rest of the world. I browsed the Yahoo comments (bad habit, almost nothing intelligent ever gets said there) and one of the first comments was "Obama has done nothing but weaken this country." lol... 1) um, no and 2) the U.S. and Russia are obligated to make a good faith effort to reduce their nuclear arsenals, any dumbass knows that. Hah, your blurb about the Yahoo comments reminds me of the Real Time with Bill Maher that was on last night. I generally don't agree with everything Maher says, but oh man, did he rip into the Republicans during his final little speech he gives each episode. If anyone manages to catch it, it is well-worth the price of admission... Watch at your own risk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted March 27, 2010 Author Share Posted March 27, 2010 QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 10:54 AM) Hah, your blurb about the Yahoo comments reminds me of the Real Time with Bill Maher that was on last night. I generally don't agree with everything Maher says, but oh man, did he rip into the Republicans during his final little speech he gives each episode. If anyone manages to catch it, it is well-worth the price of admission... Watch at your own risk Now, two months ago, conservative Fred Barnes wrote, “the health care bill is dead with not the slightest prospect of resurrection.” Well, if it's dead, you just got your ass kicked by a zombie named Nancy Pelosi. Seriously, the last time a Democrat showed balls like that John Edwards' girlfriend was filming it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 09:45 AM) Yeah all that fallout, the effect on climate, and the radiation. The smoke from the fires alone would be enough to block out a lot of the sun for several years. An actual full-blown nuclear exchange with Russia though... yeesh. That'd probably reduce the population of both countries by about 90 or 95% within a couple of days (the area around Moscow would get hit harder than anywhere else in the world) and everybody else would be struggling to live. And then there's the rest of the world. I browsed the Yahoo comments (bad habit, almost nothing intelligent ever gets said there) and one of the first comments was "Obama has done nothing but weaken this country." lol... 1) um, no and 2) the U.S. and Russia are obligated to make a good faith effort to reduce their nuclear arsenals, any dumbass knows that. This is because Obama is not investing properly in mine shaft technology. Mr. President, we must not allow a Mine Shaft Gap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 Do not listen to the people who are now saying that nothing else big should be attempted for a while because health care was so rough. Wrong. Because I learned something watching the lying bullies of the right lose this one. When they’re losing, they squeal like a pig. They kept saying things like, the bill was being “shoved down our throats.” Or the Democrats were “ramming it through.” The bill was so big they “couldn't take it all at once.” [laughter] And you know what? I realized listening to this rhetoric that it reminded me of something. It reminded me of Tiger Woods' text messages to his mistress that were made public last week Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2...u#ixzz0jOEkXoql Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 11:04 AM) This is because Obama is not investing properly in mine shaft technology. Mr. President, we must not allow a Mine Shaft Gap! That's because it's cheaper to destroy the whole mountain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 You ruined my timely reference, Balta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 The story of the negotiations and the President hanging tough when the Russians expecting him to fold was something I found interesting. President Obama was angry. He was on the phone with President Dmitri A. Medvedev last month to finalize a new arms control treaty with Russia, only to be confronted with new demands for concessions on missile defense. A deal that was supposed to be done was unraveling. “Dmitri, we agreed,” Mr. Obama told Mr. Medvedev with a tone of exasperation, according to advisers. “We can’t do this. If it means we’re going to walk away from this treaty and not get it done, so be it. But we’re not going to go down this path.” Mr. Obama hung up and vented frustration. Some of his advisers had never seen him so mad. A picture taken by a White House photographer captured his grim face in that moment of uncertainty. For a year he had been trying to forge a new relationship with Russia, starting with a treaty to slash nuclear arsenals. And for a year Russia had been testing him, suspecting he was weak and certain it could roll over him. If Mr. Obama overestimated his powers of persuasion in reaching quick agreement with the Russians, they misjudged how far they could get him to bend. In the end, they compromised on nonbinding language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 A transcript of the call: "Hello? Hello, Dimitri? Listen, I can't hear too well, do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little? Oh, that's much better. Yes. Fine, I can hear you now, Dimitri. Clear and plain and coming through fine. I'm coming through fine too, eh? Good, then. Well then as you say we're both coming through fine. Good. Well it's good that you're fine and I'm fine. I agree with you. It's great to be fine. laughs Now then Dimitri. You know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the bomb. The bomb, Dimitri. The hydrogen bomb. Well now what happened is, one of our base commanders, he had a sort of, well he went a little funny in the head. You know. Just a little... funny. And uh, he went and did a silly thing. Well, I'll tell you what he did, he ordered his planes... to attack your country. Well let me finish, Dimitri. Let me finish, Dimitri. Well, listen, how do you think I feel about it? Can you imagine how I feel about it, Dimitri? Why do you think I'm calling you? Just to say hello? Of course I like to speak to you. Of course I like to say hello. Not now, but any time, Dimitri. I'm just calling up to tell you something terrible has happened. It's a friendly call. Of course it's a friendly call. Listen, if it wasn't friendly, ... you probably wouldn't have even got it. They will not reach their targets for at least another hour. I am... I am positive, Dimitri. Listen, I've been all over this with your ambassador. It is not a trick. Well I'll tell you. We'd like to give your air staff a complete run down on the targets, the flight plans, and the defensive systems of the planes. Yes! I mean, if we're unable to recall the planes, then I'd say that, uh, well, we're just going to have to help you destroy them, Dimitri. I know they're our boys. Alright, well, listen... who should we call? Who should we call, Dimitri? The people...? Sorry, you faded away there. The People's Central Air Defense Headquarters. Where is that, Dimitri? In Omsk. Right. Yes. Oh, you'll call them first, will you? Uh huh. Listen, do you happen to have the phone number on you, Dimitri? What? I see, just ask for Omsk Information. I'm sorry too, Dimitri. I'm very sorry. Alright! You're sorrier than I am! But I am sorry as well. I am as sorry as you are, Dimitri. Don't say that you are more sorry than I am, because I am capable of being just as sorry as you are. So we're both sorry, alright? Alright. Yes he's right here. Yes, he wants to talk to you. Just a second. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 (edited) In Nuclear war the first couple rounds of missiles are directed at the other countries defense shield and offensive silo's. Ruin the other sides ability to wage nuclear war. So it wont be all that bad on the population centers, maybe a couple would be hit but there's way too many in both countries to really make it a priority to destroy them. No way there would be 90-95% casualty rate... probably more like 40%. Edited March 27, 2010 by DukeNukeEm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 This is because Obama is not investing properly in mine shaft technology. Mr. President, we must not allow a Mine Shaft Gap! Through the purity and essence of our natural bodily fluids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 01:21 PM) In Nuclear war the first couple rounds of missiles are directed at the other countries defense shield and offensive silo's. Ruin the other sides ability to wage nuclear war. So it wont be all that bad on the population centers, maybe a couple would be hit but there's way too many in both countries to really make it a priority to destroy them. No way there would be 90-95% casualty rate... probably more like 40%. Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say... no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh... depended on the breaks. But, really, we've got enough warheads floating around in the oceans to decimate a good chunk of Russia. And I'm sure they've the same. The "first strike" theory hasn't really been all the applicable since the 60's -- it's always been MAD because you just won't be able to take out enough of the capacity. Edited March 27, 2010 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted March 27, 2010 Author Share Posted March 27, 2010 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 04:18 PM) Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say... no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh... depended on the breaks. But, really, we've got enough warheads floating around in the oceans to decimate a good chunk of Russia. And I'm sure they've the same. The "first strike" theory hasn't really been all the applicable since the 60's -- it's always been MAD because you just won't be able to take out enough of the capacity. This. Since the U.S. and Russia both have full nuclear triads (China does too but not as many) it's difficult to impossible to take out the full capability, so many of them can be deployed within a few minutes. Yeah, you'd take some bombers out before they get off the ground, hit a silo before the launch gets off, might get lucky and take out some submarines, but the rest are coming for you and it's going to be devastating. There is a link somewhere I'll post when I find explaining what exactly would happen. The loss of population won't all be directly related to nuclear blasts, it will come from things like starvation, radiation sickness, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 03:55 PM) This. Since the U.S. and Russia both have full nuclear triads (China does too but not as many) it's difficult to impossible to take out the full capability, so many of them can be deployed within a few minutes. Yeah, you'd take some bombers out before they get off the ground, hit a silo before the launch gets off, might get lucky and take out some submarines, but the rest are coming for you and it's going to be devastating. There is a link somewhere I'll post when I find explaining what exactly would happen. The loss of population won't all be directly related to nuclear blasts, it will come from things like starvation, radiation sickness, etc. And just imagine the carbon emissions@! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted March 27, 2010 Author Share Posted March 27, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 06:02 PM) And just imagine the carbon emissions@! lol... well Balta can correct me on this but I think the smoke and whatnot will go above the level of the atmosphere that holds rain, so it won't wash away and will drop the temperature a few dozen degrees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 27, 2010 -> 04:05 PM) lol... well Balta can correct me on this but I think the smoke and whatnot will go above the level of the atmosphere that holds rain, so it won't wash away and will drop the temperature a few dozen degrees The term is nuclear winter IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts