With friends like Obama, who needs enemies. Apparently as part of Obama's efforts to get Russia on board with the anti-nuclear weapons treaty, he agreed to give the Reds confidential details of Britain's nuclear capability. Sometimes I wonder just whose side your president is on.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...uclear-secrets.html#

[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 02-07-2011).]

The red side.

I'm having a hard time believing this at all.

Brad

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: I'm having a hard time believing this at all. Brad

Why is that? Do a search on google for "US Britain nuclear" and you will find a slew of links about Obama's betrayal.

The guy is not only grossly incompetant, he is also a menace, plain and simple.

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: The red side.

try to keep up
there is no USSR any more
and the russians are no longer REDS

quote Originally posted by ray b: cold wars over we won [thanks to the russian and eastern euro people who beat the reds]

Priceless.

I think there's an easy way to deal with this. Just claim we "lost" the paperwork listing all the serial numbers of the missiles/warheads.

So we ask the Brits if we can check them to recover the data.

OOPS! All the serial numbers are filed off. So sorry, lads.

Gee, Ivan, we'd LOVE to tell you, but there's just NO WAY to be sure those Limey's weren't playing some shell game with us, ya know?

quote Originally posted by ray b: Britain's nuclear secrets in this case are property of the maker the good old USA we supply the sub plans the rocket and the warheads to the brits so we gave the russians who are not reds our own data not anything made by the brits and treatys limiting nukes are nothing new or different inc such data exchanges cold wars over we won [thanks to the russian and eastern euro people who beat the reds] or just yet another set of BIG LIES from the neo-conned you guys are one trick ponys

Guys like Putin have to just love you.. "Useful idiot".

quote Originally posted by ray b: Britain's nuclear secrets in this case are property of the maker the good old USA we supply the sub plans the rocket and the warheads to the brits so we gave the russians who are not reds our own data not anything made by the brits and treatys limiting nukes are nothing new or different inc such data exchanges cold wars over we won [thanks to the russian and eastern euro people who beat the reds] or just yet another set of BIG LIES from the neo-conned you guys are one trick ponys

The US should not be giving ANY ally's nuclear secrets to ANY other country. That means we should not tell the French how many missile we sell to the UK either. This is not a hard concept to understand.

lol
so - which one of ya think "russia" cannot make nuclear weapons?
what secrets? doesnt sound like any secrets at all.
capabilities. thats it.
and - how accurate you think this info actually will be?

Which of ya thinks it has anything at all to do with whether or not Russia or any other nation "can" make their own?
[no one raises their hands] because it does not. It has to do with capabilities as they fit with Great Britian's overal defense posture and offensive capability. IOW, how they (GB) might or might not deploy and implement use of such weapons. Moreso, it has to do with the signal Obama (or any other POTUS) sends during the course of such negotiations--that is--whether one is negotiating from a position of strength, implied strength, weakness or implied weakness.

from wicki

''''''USA and USSR/RF arms limitation treaties

* Treaty banning Nuclear Weapon Tests In The Atmosphere, In Outer Space And Under Water (also known as the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (NTBT), Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT), or Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT)), 1963. Also put forth by Kennedy; banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, underwater and in space. However, neither France nor China (both Nuclear Weapon States) signed.
* Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): 1968. Established the U.S., USSR, UK, France, and China as five "Nuclear-Weapon States". Non-Nuclear Weapon states were prohibited from (among other things) possessing, manufacturing, or acquiring nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. All 187 signatories were committed to the goal of (eventual) nuclear disarmament.
* Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM): 1972. Entered into between the U.S. and USSR to limit the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems used in defending areas against missile-delivered nuclear weapons; ended by the US in 2002.
* Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties I & II (SALT I & II): 1972 / 1979. Limited the growth of US and Soviet missile arsenals.
* Prevention of Nuclear War Agreement: 1973. Committed the U.S. and USSR to consult with one another during conditions of nuclear confrontation.
* Threshold Test Ban Treaty: 1974. Capped Nuclear tests at 150 kilotons.
* Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF): 1987. Eliminated nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with intermediate ranges, defined as between 500-5,500 km (300-3,400 miles)
* Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty I (START I): 1991. This was signed by George H. W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev; reduced the numbers of U.S. and Soviet long-range missiles and nuclear warheads from 10,000 per side to 6,000 per side.
* Mutual Detargeting Treaty (MDT): 1994. U.S. and Russian missiles no longer automatically target the other country; nuclear forces are no longer operated in a manner that presumes that the two nations are adversaries.
* Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty II (START II]: 1993. Will reduce the numbers of U.S. and Russian long-range missiles and nuclear warheads from 6,000 per side to 3,500-3,000 per side. (START III proposed for 2007).
* Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) 1996. Prohibits all nuclear test explosions in all environments; signed by 180 states, and ratified by 148. The United States has signed, but not ratified, the CTBT.
* Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT/Moscow Treaty (2002)). Established bilateral strategic nuclear arms reductions and a new "strategic nuclear framework"; also invited all countries to adopt non-proliferation principles aimed at preventing terrorists, or those that harbored them, from acquiring or developing all types of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and related materials, equipment, and technology.
* New START (2010): A follow-up to START I, the treaty was signed at President Barack Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev in Prague on April 8, 2010, and ratified by the United States Senate on December 22, 2010. Ratification is pending in the Federal Assembly of Russia. The treaty would cut the arsenals of both the U.S. and Russia to ~1550 warheads each.'['''
'

sorry neo-cons this is a done deal signed and stamped by congress in 2010
got some thing new ??????????

Having the treaty already signed is more of an indictment of the Obama administration than an exoneration. Obama sold out our closest ally to broker that deal. The fact that the deal went through means that Obama also gave the Russians GB's nuclear secrets.

I find it very strange that you are bragging about a deal brokered on crooked grounds. Would you brag about selling a car if the buyer threw in that they would kill your neighbor's dog for you?

quote lol so - which one of ya think "russia" cannot make nuclear weapons? what secrets? doesnt sound like any secrets at all. capabilities. thats it. and - how accurate you think this info actually will be?

I think the secrets they are talking about are what kind of nuclear weapons they have, how many do they have, where are they located, and what are they aimed at, not how to make them. They already know how to do that.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 02-07-2011).]

russia with our prodding and cash
collected all the nukes the 'stann's ' and others had
and destroyed them
that is good and nuts are far less likely to get nukes or materials now
BUT we didnot take back or limit what we had given the brits like they did their guys
we just counted and typed the nukes in the agreement [sub launched tridents ]

btw most all this was agreed to by BuSh2 people as these treatys take years to work out
oboma just signed what was worked out years ago

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by ray b: try to keep up there is no USSR any more and the russians are no longer REDS

China is still RED, last time I checked.

Most of what the annoited one gives to Russia, winds up in China.

[This message has been edited by htexans1 (edited 02-07-2011).]

so there are still reds under the beds
but they magically morphed from russians to chinese
but never fear we still got reds under the beds

come on

quote Originally posted by ray b: so there are still reds under the beds but they magically morphed from russians to chinese but never fear we still got reds under the beds come on

Having read some of your replys over the years, regarding the Cuban missile crisis, it's ironic, that you were not quite so quick to make light of the Reds living under Fidel's bed during that time period.

He supported Obama so he'll say or do anything to qualify his stupidity, and Obamas, now.

so - does this mean the Russia (or anyone else, like China) should be able to sells it nukes to whomever, and NOT tell us who, and how many?

because that is what is being implied here - that nuke dealing should be a big secret. is that the case?

while I agree that probably IS in fact the case, and there are many more nukes which have been secretly sold to nations, and maybe even privately, that noone knows about. Is this the world you choose? because that is what you are argueing for. do we want nuke deals above the table or under the table?

tho - I understand the quest to make everything one sided - ours - but - that world doesnt exist anymore. we gave that away to asia. China gets to do all the one-sided dealings now.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Having read some of your replys over the years, regarding the Cuban missile crisis, it's ironic, that you were not quite so quick to make light of the Reds living in Fidel's bed during that time period.

Fixed that for ya, mj.

Seems to me that the point was lost.
If BHO is going to give ally "secrets" (or any information that they trust us to keep) to a non ally, why would our ally then assist us with information we could use if they feel we will eventually give it to a non ally?

How would it matter what political side you sit on as this can break friendships?

-Dave

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: so - does this mean the Russia (or anyone else, like China) should be able to sells it nukes to whomever, and NOT tell us who, and how many? because that is what is being implied here - that nuke dealing should be a big secret. is that the case? while I agree that probably IS in fact the case, and there are many more nukes which have been secretly sold to nations, and maybe even privately, that noone knows about. Is this the world you choose? because that is what you are argueing for. do we want nuke deals above the table or under the table? tho - I understand the quest to make everything one sided - ours - but - that world doesnt exist anymore. we gave that away to asia. China gets to do all the one-sided dealings now.

+ 4 U

Great post, valid points and make you go hmmmm....

There are reports that the whole thing is part of the START treaty anyways and this is why you haven't seen this in the "main stream" media.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: tho - I understand the quest to make everything one sided - ours - .

Which is the one thing I never got.
The decending degrees of evil applied to those below us.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 02-08-2011).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Having read some of your replys over the years, regarding the Cuban missile crisis, it's ironic, that you were not quite so quick to make light of the Reds living under Fidel's bed during that time period.

where were you in 62 ?
the crazys almost blew it back then
and I would have been a dead 12 yearold
if the neo-con's of that day had their way

the point being I donot want to rerun the coldwar
like so many on the right do
it is over we won they fell
and all this is about NOT going back to that time

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?