How many times should you be able to destroy the world?
There are enough NUKES to destroy the world 10 TIMES OVER. Couldn't we dial that back to being able to destroy the world a mere FIVE time over, or THREE or TWO times?
If you watch the whole clip of this conversation they actually start off by explaining, though not very well, the treaty. They are still fucktards and take the wrong view on the treaty but they don't completely ignore the fact that Russia reduces its nukes too. Seriously Young Turks, if you have to edit a Fox News segment to make them look like liars you aren't trying hard enough and are being deceptive yourself.
John Bolton should be arrested and sent to Devil's Island and then drill a hole down to hell so satan can come and get him.. he has so much blood on his hands from all the evil he has done during his lifetime ...people think that Hitler was the greatest mass murderer in history.. but there are people living today who have caused more people to die and suffer than hitler ever thought about...they do it not thru firing the gun but thru indirect means thru others
@udical You must be very very confused to live in such stupid fear. You're crying because the Chinese are coming for you and your protector is John fucking Bolton. Man blow your head off, your mind is fucked.
@nilbud no i just know what colectivism is, and chiese want to come, they are already in cuba, venezuela, ecuador, north sudan, burma, north korea, bolivia...... and they hate white imperialist with capital, can with capital they mean more than 5 000$
Both sides are full of shit. The start treaty reduced our nukes only by a small fraction, it makes no difference. Its utterly pointless, Just an opportunity for politicians and talking heads to grandstand
This issue shouldn't even be such a partisan thing as it was. Reducing the number of nuclear weapons all over the world is helpful in many ways. Even Ronald Reagan, which conservatives love to idolize, I once saw a video clip of him making a statement that "A nuclear war can never be won." It just completely amazes me how the Republicans cared more about partisan politics than the safety of not only our country, but the entire world.
Threre are several flaws with this START treaty: Weak verification mechanisms,The treaty’s failure to address tactical nuclear weapons, where Russia holds a large advantage over the U.S.,The prioritization of signing and ratifying a feel-good treaty over more urgent steps to modernize America’s nuclear arsenal,the U.S. now has no effective seaborne tactical nuclear systems with which to counter North Korea and Iran.)
@AustrianAtheist no, wrong we have nukes of plenty we could blow up eath 40! times, not to the point of nuklear winter but to blwing the planet into RUBLE
Yes, 50 nukes create a nuclear winter. But most experts agree that even with all nuclear weapons some human beings would survive. It is clear, that nuclear weapons cannot kill plants, fish. There have been experiments with ants: ants are extremly resistent towards radiation.
There have also been studies on the nuclear winter: The population in the poor countries would die, but in the industrialized world, with efficient food supply the survival rate will be high.
come out and inform the rest of the world , don`t think that faux news`agenda is well known. infact it is waay beyond silly and dumb for veery long, but while you get used to it , like with the stupidest bully in school, they shape the discourse and the fact that they don`t care about you there, is proof enough that they want to infest everyone everywhere, cause there are also papers and radio and broadcast in the rest of the world they own. keep up, put faux news to rest, they fail you
Cenk is full of Bullshit, again! Russia gave up weapons they were going to get rid of in the first place because they were in a process of modernizing their arsenal whereas we gave up stuff we need a well armed US has prevented a third world war. Why do we need a little Turkish immigrant to tell us it didn't?
China? How uneducated are you? Russia and USA have about 95% of all nuclear weapons.
Russia has 12.400 nuclear bombs, USA has 9.500 and China has about 200.
Btw. the US did not say anything, when their allies India, Israel and Pakistan got atomic weapons. Pakistan's program was supported by Saudi Arabia, who maybe also have nuclear weapons, but the US always and only talks about iran.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty will become obsolet, when the major powers continue their policies..
look at you, 20 yrs old and already a graduate fool!
how do you know how many such weapons China has? they confide in you? Besides, the point is while US and Russia are reducing and diminishing their strength, China is free to do what it wants
if u don't see the difference between India, Israel and Iran, ur a lost cause! The former 2 are stable democracies whereas Iran is run by a bunch of super fanatics called "twelvers" who want to start world war 3
What is the difference between Pakistan and Iran? Please tell me! Btw. your ally Saudi Arabia has helped Pakistan to develop nukes and probably have access to them too. Saudi Arabia is your ally, yet they have death penalty for apostasy, oppose democracy and so on.
The US invades country after country, yet you claim it is china, that can do what it wants...lol...
Why should China, France, UK or countries reduce their few nukes, when the countries with 95% of all nukes cannot even START?
Pakistan is dangerous Country too which should not be trusted but Iran is far worse in that it is a State sponsor of terrorist groups and is run by radicals called the "twelvers" who would like to see world chaos so that the Imam who is in hiding would return to life and install islam world wide. People who are suicidal should have no access to any weapons let alone nuclear weapons
China has a history of invading too. it invaded Tibet, Viet nam, Korea, India, wants Taiwan
Genie is at it again, all the countries bush liked are good, and all the other ones are bad right?
Grow up genie get over the twelvers thing FFS. Austrian Atheist pointed out how Saudi are up to there necks in terrorism (see the nationalities of the 911 hijackers for proof) and yet you just skip over those facts as they dont fit in to your argument.
Oh and by the way..... unless your 100% American Indian your a little immigrant too!
twelvers are very dangerous in that they are in control of a Country trying to build nuclear weapons. the 9/11 hijackers were wahhabi idiots that belong back in the 7/8th century
anyone born in the US is not an immigrant you freakin moron, you listen to pandering politicians looking for votes, not wishing to offend any minority group so they talk stupid talk
an immigrant is one who is born in one Country and then movers to another to become a citizen
@sikvenum82 Took the words right out of my mouth. The human race could be so much better...but instead we're too busy enslaving and hating one another. I hope I see a day when our species moves a little closer to maturity. Peace
"Why does it make the world a safer place when the US gets ride of it's own nuclear weapons? Isn't it a strong well armed America the key to harmony in this world"?
"Of Course it is"!
I rest my case, the republicans are bat-sh•t crazy WAR MONGERS!
While we spend trillions on weapons, China laughs at us while they quietly take over!
Carlson, Bolton are an insult and an embarrassment to the this nation! At least they are paid well to be so!
What do you expect from these two guys? Bolton was so unqualified for his position as UN Ambassador that the only way he got to serve in that position was for a recess appointment by a feeble-minded president because no right thing Congress would dare appoint such a hawkish idiot to an important diplomatic post. And, as for Tucker...look at him. His grandmother still dresses him. He's a joke.
John Bolton is a dinosaur who truly believes in Pax Americana. I don't presume to know more about national security than he does, but when a man like this is able to ignore the advice, reasoning and documentation of dozens of other experts and organizations that refute his thinking, from both sides of the political spectrum, one must consider if he is living in some sort of grandiose delusion that he knows better than anyone else. god help us if he ever holds a position of influence again.
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units. . . Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country." (Colin Powell's autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148)
Americas strength is air superiority and boots on the ground.Nukes have become a strategic weapon the brains in NATO are working on getting as little bag for the buck as they can. If they have to use nukes they want pin point accuracy not massive damage. On the ground in the middle east they want as little contact as possible between soldiers and civilians to discourage rape and prostitution. Something that did not happen with the British and the soviets.
John Bolton's a disingenuous blow hard. A while back he kept appearing on the BBC on certain topics related to Britain/ Europe (from a US perspective), every time he got nearly all of his facts wrong. Two crackers that stand out were his insistence an independent Kosovo would fail, and not understanding that Scotland and England are actually two countries in Union with one another, and have their own jurisdictional law systems. Guess he never heard of the 1707 Acts of Union & what preceded it.
Overmilitarisation wrecked the Soviet Union. That is how the West won the Cold War. Now the US is having problems because they could not downsize its military after they won.
I also can't believe all the morons who have completely forgotten *why* we signed the ABM treaties.. you'd think you'd remember why the whole Reagan "Star Wars" thing was important?
Anti ABM treaties are why we only had like 5,000 nukes and not 20,000 or more. it prevented a race about what percentage of nukes make it through to assure destruction. the more nukes an unstable russia has, the more likely iran or whomever will "buy" one..
@Tounushi The fact is, that if a hiroshima sized bomb hit New York, the whole area would become a toxic hellhole like Ground Zero. Hiroshima was pretty low rise. Modern cities are not. If a terrorist gets their hands on one of the former Soviet nukes and leaves it in any city that has skyscrapers, the skyscrapers themselves would make the weapon much worse.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both ~20kt, and even the weakest strategic weapon is over ten times as powerful, so one could easily imagine the raw devastation of such a bomb.
But you have a very good point with the topography and the types of buildings in the area.
The reason the slightly weaker Hiroshima blast was much more devastating than the one in Nagasaki was because Hiroshima was surrounded by hills, slightly containing the blastwave.
@Metalmeltdown1000 And so a prudent question: what do you intend to DO about it? The French Revolution didn't just happen because people were aggrieved, but because they were impassioned to change the system as it stood. What are you doing?
We have more nukes than every single country combined. Why do we need that many? We can blow up every country in the world 500 times over but conservatives want more.
@spinnersmetal Not really important to say, but I'll say it anyway, America does not in fact have that many nukes. Russia actually currently has a significantly larger number of warheads than America due to a treaty signed in 2001 to reduce warheads, and the fact that the US reached its reduction goal faster than Russia.
"Isn't a strong well armed America the key to harmony in this world?"
How the hell does someone equate more weaponry to more peace? Better yet, what kind of ignorant and deluded person would sit at home and agree with this?
AMERICA NEEDS TO HAVE ENOUGH NUKES TO BOMB EVERY MAJOR COUNTRY IN THE WORLD ONE-HUNDRED TIMES OVER YOU STUPID COMMIE SCUMBAG LIBERALS WHO WANT ALL AMERICANS TO DIE AND KIM JONG-IL TO RUN THE WORLD!!!
- this bit of sarcasm brought to you by
*Corporations: fucking you in the ass every day....you're welcome! :)
Funny how he shows that Republicans think there is no such things as doing something just for the sake of being "kind." Typical heartless Republican mentality.
Next, their God, Reagan, wanted to limit nukes held by world powers. Also, how many nukes do we need to destroy the world? Do we need enough to destroy the world 100x instead of 50x?
Lastly, why is Carlson still on tv and pretending to be educated on anything? He doesn't hold a college degree. Another uneducated host at Fox
Here is the problem wit FOX "News". Cenk has to sit here and explain the basics of what a treaty is. Tucker Carlson and John Bolten aren't so stupid that they simply don't grasp the concept of a treaty. They know exactly what they are doing. They are simply lying to their audience out-right.
It is one thing to spin the truth to work with your agenda. But this clip is an example of an out-right lie. FOX's audience needs to know that they are being lied to.
@krebul if only they had the intelligence to understand...if they did they wouldn't have accepted the lie in the first place..they are simple minded, brainwashed and have significantly impaired cognitive functioning..if anyone doubts that watch any of the videos of tea baggers being interviewed at their rallies...it's embarrassing
Fuck, what a pair these two dopes are. Reduce our nuclear capabilities? We currently have between 12,000-40,000 warheads, the large range is due to the secrecy of our government and the bogus stockpile cut we claimed after the cold war. How many warheads are needed to destroy the entire world? I imagine we have enough to do this thousands of times. There is no sane or reasonable reason for having so many nukes, any argument against this treaty or any other in reducing nukes is incomprehensible.
@TheUSMetalhead the combined nuclear weapons that have ever been built could not "destroy the world," though I guess it depends upon what you mean by "destroy the world."
The original models for nuclear winter were seriously flawed (using an earth that was a perfect sphere). using nukes to "wipe out the human race" is even questionable, since any nuclear exchange would result in most weapons never being brought to bear, and humans being spread out across the globe.
@TheUSMetalhead but yes, it's safe to say that there are enough nukes out there to "bomb us back into the stone age." considering the major powers would be knocked out, and the economy of the world is tied to these nations, there would be worldwide chaos and millions would probably die (not just from the bombing itself or effects of radioactive fallout). it would be disastrous for humanity. but this talk of "destroying the world many times over" is exaggerated at best, fantasy at worst
"Isn't a strong well armed America the key to harmony in this world?"
I smell imperialism and world policing. We do not need 30x the amount of nuclear warheads to destroy the world over. This treaty is a message, that warring nations should not excell in progress, that we deserve a better world than the militant functioning police country of America. So too to other nations, less military funding, more infrastructure.
Wow, America having weapons of mass destruction is the key to world peace? Jesus H. Christ, this guy is a moron. How in the world can anyone watch Fox and take it seriously?
@ContraofTheUnion the whole philosophy of having nukes ensuring peace was a logical theory according to M.A.D. the trouble is that now you don't have two relatively equal super powers standing toe to toe with noone else to oppose them.
@ContraofTheUnion instead you have lots of little nations with a few nukes each saber rattling their neighbors (India/Pakistan, North Korea, etc). You also have the fact that you can't use nukes against a nebulous threat like "terrorists" so nukes are not much use in the "modern" war on terror for example, which is a serious weakness of a nuclear arsenal. so it once made sense but the world has changed since the USSR dissolved
liberals and conservatives will evolve into separate species. The liberals will be the smarter ones and will cause the conservatives to go extinct the same way Cro Magnun did to the Neanderthal.
There is no way to address the deficit without addressing nuclear weapons decreases. If you call yourself a fiscal conservative you can not disagree, unless you are an hypocrite, liar or just plain stupid.
UN REAL these guys... so they use they "Out of the kindness of their hearts they will reduce nuclear weaponry"
So then I ask... Ok "so out of the kindness of their hearts they won't drop coverage to still borns fro pre-existing conditions? out of the kidness of their hearts they won't make crap loans to buy stock into and sell before it explodes? Out of the kindness of their hearts they won't use extra tax revenue to save more money by exporting jobs to Sri Lanka?" I could go on but no room.
UN REAL these guys... so they use they "Out of the kindness of their hearts they will reduce nuclear weaponry"
So then I ask... Ok "so out of the kindness of their hearts they won't drop coverage to still borns fro pre-existing conditions? out of the kidness of their hearts they won't make crap loans to buy stock into and sell before it explodes? Out of the kindness of their hearts they won't use extra tax revenue to save more money by exporting jobs to Sri Lanka?" I could go on but no room.
Honestly I think the United States getting rid of nuclear weapons is the best idea I've ever heard. Personally it fucking scares that they have the weapons in the first place. I live in Canada and with our large oil and fresh water reserves we might look like a very good target for the United States to invade.
@nilbud "It's a retarded expression of cowardice" Precisely! It's America's imperialistic tendencies that have ruined it's reputation in the world. It's time for a new foreign policy that puts an end to nation building.
"Isn't a strong, well-armed America the key to harmony in the world?"
What a fucking sick delluded question.
Tell that the Palestinians, the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Vietnamese, the Cambodians, the Japanese, the Nicaraguans, the Cubans, hell all of South America and all of the Middle East!
@jimisback Actually Russian RS-24 was tested in 2007 and deployed in 2010. 1 missile can carry up to 10 independently targetable warheads. If US weren't provoking with the rocket shield, Russians wouldn't bother making new nukes. But even the old Topol M is designed to avoid the rocket shield.
Fox News never ceases to amaze me. Unfortunately they prey on older folk like my mother using their fear and ignorance to manipulate in a not particularly positive way. It really is wrong.
Nuclear winter should solve the global warming issue though. Does anybody know how many nuclear retaliations there would need to be for that? There is a limit to how many nukes can go off before it is globally deadly right?
@UtubeMyAccountName So you have to have tooooons of freaking nukes to be "defended"? The treaty is not that anyone should just throw away every single weapon they own, you know.
@AsifIcarebear3 I don't usually speak in platitudes, but at times they are just dead on:
"Weapons don't make war, people make war"
Accepting this as accurate, then the opposite must also be true;
Lack of weapons doesn't make peace, people (must) make peace.
A weapon is nothing more than a tool. They can be used either, to harm people, or to defend them from harm. This depends on the persons who have the weapons, not the weapons themselves.
@UtubeMyAccountName But does it make peace to have enough nukes to destroy the planet many times over? Wikipedia states the US has about 2500 active warheads. Even if that is inaccurate, do you not agree that a number even close to that high is completely and utterly unnecessary to "defend" yourself?
"Weapons don't make war, people make war"? If you have no weapons people will not be able to wage war against each other. If no one has any nukes, there is no threat of nukes.
@AsifIcarebear3 Clearly, the number of nukes we have is more than we need, but so what. Who are they hurting? Also these nukes cost ridiculous amounts of money to build, n now we're going to turn around n spend ridiculous amounts of money to break them down, why?
That part about 'no weapons no war' is Utopian thinking, n is not applicable to real life. People who want to go to war, will go to war. If they don't have any weapons, they'll build some. So, we best be able to defend ourselves
@Waage83 True, but still FAR less than dismantling them would. They are already built, they are bothering no one, what is the point of this treaty. If they are bothering anybody, I would really like to know WHY! If they (whoever) mean us no harm, then why do they care WHAT, or HOW MANY weapons we have?
@Waage83 What does any of what Russia is doing have to do with our nuclear arsenal. Their economic growth is unrelated to "peaceful correspondence". Poor or rich, if they want to have peaceful relations with us, they will have peaceful relations.
If they cannot have peaceful relations with us, because we are a military power, then that's a problem in and of itself, but it's THEIR problem. You're suggesting that a society should adapt its behavior, to make someone else happy. Unacceptable...
You're suggesting that societies should submit to the will of outside influences, because something about them is not to their liking. This is ridiculous
Look don't get me wrong, I am not saying that societies can just do whatever they please and the rest of the world be damned, we all must share this world, but things about us, or any society that does not DIRECTLY affect others are not their business. Unless you mean us harm, or think we mean you harm, our weapons are not your concern.
@UtubeMyAccountName I'm not suggesting the USA should stop doing some little irrelevant thing that doesn't affect anyone. I'm saying that no country should have a weapon capable of laying waste to entire freaking cities, or more, rendering that area toxic for many years. It's a weapon that should never have been brought to existence, and it's time to destroy them. You just like the idea of having the biggest penis on the block. You never get to have sex with it, you just like it. Stupid.
@AsifIcarebear3 "I'm not suggesting the USA should stop doing some little irrelevant thing that doesn't affect anyone. I'm saying that no country should have a weapon capable of laying waste to entire freaking cities, or more, rendering that area toxic for many years."
IRRELEVANT.
This is my point exactly. You are afraid of the nuclear bomb, so you don't want anyone to have them. Here is the problem; everybody is NOT afraid, and they would do anything to have/get one. What will you do then?
No, the U.S. doesn't need all its nukes, & no, that doesn't mean it should give up (destroy) any of its nukes.
Yes, this time you have got it right. No, there will be no backtracking.
To say a person, or society doesn't need to have, or do a thing, doesn't mean a person, or society shouldn't have, or do a thing. The one, has nothing to do with the other. They are mutually exclusive arguments...
@UtubeMyAccountName You have understanding how international back room politics works and how things look in different country's.
In some ways Russia dose not give a fuck about America and what weapons they have, but the Russian People dose. There are still a view in Russia that America is the big bad guy and the Government in Russia would like to remove that perception.
This is also a way for both the US and Russia to keep a eye on loose nukes.
After 8 Years of Bush Europe have turned there back on America more or less only friendly and no longer a ally
With this and Russia's growth in power it has made it a perfect chance for Russia to Project it's power over Europe and it's ideas in a non hostile manor.
This treaty is a perfect way for Russia to go out and SAY "look how peaceful we are" and if America had said no it woudl be even better for Russia.
@UtubeMyAccountName Who are they hurting? Since the US isn't the only country with them, agreeing on not having/using nukes seems perfectly reasonable. Having nukes while fighting a war is like having a grenade in a room full of people, where you only fight 1 of them. If you use the grenade, you risk killing everyone. If you all agree on throwing away the grenades, the only one affected by any fistfight will be the two people engaging. And whatever people might join in.
@UtubeMyAccountName This is my second response. Explain to me why you need nuclear weapons in order to "defend" yourself? What country could hurt you if everyone agreed to destroy their nukes? Are there any countries on the war path? China won't attack you, they'll be owning you in a few years anyway - no reason to destroy their own property. North Korea is too small and would be dealt with easily if they did anything. Russia? Come on now. You could have 0 nukes and it wouldn't matter.
@UtubeMyAccountName China not attacking you was an example of a country that you could feasibly need nukes to defend yourself against. "The ability to defend oneself is ESSENTIAL to liberty." and here we are, where you have to explain to me why you need upwards of 2500 nukes - an extremely, extremely potent weapon - in order to "defend" yourself. Why do you need that grenade in the room? You're already on steroids, because the other countries go to the office instead of the gym. See my point?
@AsifIcarebear3 I don't believe I ever said we NEEDED so many nukes.
It isn't a question of need, but of sovereignty. It's not the place of any country to decide the internal policies of another (yes, I'm aware my govt is guilty of this very thing). If my govt and Russia's decide to reduce our nuclear arsenals, then fine, if not ALSO fine. Personally I would never do the latter. Not because I fear any society out there is intending any harm, but because I don't WANT to fear it.
@UtubeMyAccountName Second response. You won't fear anything if you all agree on breaking your nukes. As I said, your country is on steroids, army/military/whatever wise. The point is you can defend yourself just fine without having nukes. If everyone agreed on breaking their nukes you'd actually stand stronger, because a nuke can take care of a pretty damn big army. Without them, you won't have to worry about them. Or do you want to have another cold war? It's like arguing with a door.
@AsifIcarebear3 This world was FAR more bloody, brutal, savage, and warring (up until this ridiculous 'war on terror'), BEFORE the advent of the nuclear weapon, than it has been since. So historically, your argument just doesn't hold up.
Also a cold war is MUCH preferable to a hot one. The soldiers that would have to fight such wars, my fellow citizens, their sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, and brothers and sisters, are much more important to me than anybody's 'comfort level'.
@UtubeMyAccountName Okay, fine, let's follow your logic, shall we?! What if the USA invented a weapon that could destroy, literally eradicate, an entire country and its citizens from the face of the earth. Think death star. Since the USA has this weapon, many other countries feel that they need it too in order to "defend" themselves. If anyone goes to war, or even just pisses off another country, they risk being incinerated at a moments notice. Would it be "okay" for all countries to have this?
Think about what you are saying, nobody could win such a war. The very idea is ridiculous. What country would be ABLE to make war with such a weapon? It would be a decision to initiate the end of days.
Unless only ONE country had such a weapon. Think about it.
@UtubeMyAccountName So you're saying countries shouldn't break down their nukes but make more? And encourage other countries to make nukes as well, so we won't have to fear each others nukes? Because by your logic, if we all have them no one will use them, right? Why don't YOU think about what you're saying. If no one has any nukes, where is the fear of nukes? You can't tell me with a straight face that you prefer a world where countries have to have nukes in order to feel "defended".
@AsifIcarebear3 This will NEVER again be a world where no one has nukes. That's like saying we should get rid of all the guns, it's absurd. What's done is done, all that's left is to deal with it.
I hope you have heard/read the story of Pandora's box. This is that. What you want is simply not possible.
Look I want the same thing you do; everybody on an even playing field. Your way can't get us there.
@UtubeMyAccountName What? Of course we can get to a point where no one has nukes. It won't be easy, but it's something we should aim for.
Your way of getting to an even playing field dictates that every country should have nukes to not fear nukes. That's foolish. No country should have a weapon that powerful. Besides, the US has waaay more nukes than needed to "defend" itself. You could destroy the earth 50times over. Or maybe that "protection" isn't enough for you?
@AsifIcarebear3 I see you didn't get my Pandora's Box reference.
The knowledge of how to build nukes will continue to exist, even if nukes don't. What's to stop any country at war from building one, if say they are losing a conventional war? Nothing, and we are right back where we started.
I don't see any reason for my country to build more nukes (update them, yes), but I also don't see any reason to destroy them either.
@UtubeMyAccountName Building a nuke isn't something you "just" do. You see no reason to destroy them? Have you read nothing of what I said? Using nuclear warheads doesn't just affect the target country/location, but risks the entire world - dust being blown up into the atmosphere, creating a new ice age. Or at the very least radioactive waste killing thousands if not millions. If we all destroy our nukes, no one will have to fear them. It's very, very simple. To be continued
@UtubeMyAccountName Part two. If you, then, think a country is building them, you should of course be allowed to investigate said country.
Also, "What's to stop any country at war from building one, if say they are losing a conventional war? ", I ask again: What country do you see yourself going to war against any time soon, that would require you to have upwards of 2500 nukes up your sleeve, just so that you can "defend" yourself? Nukes is a way too potent weapon to have even 1 of.
adam curtis my friends check for his docuemntary on youtube and get mind fucked
hansson2000 7 months ago
How many times should you be able to destroy the world?
There are enough NUKES to destroy the world 10 TIMES OVER. Couldn't we dial that back to being able to destroy the world a mere FIVE time over, or THREE or TWO times?
blueboyblue 7 months ago
another armchair intellectual...
1:36 Mubarack?
fargonbastedge 8 months ago
UNDER THE GAYDAR!!!! WITH DICKTUCKER CARLSON FKING FAGGGGGGGS
mcloutier12345 1 year ago
Crackers!
datniggami7 1 year ago
We only need enough nuclear power to level every city in the world once, not 20 times over. Whats the point of having that much firepower?
torremalku 1 year ago
If you watch the whole clip of this conversation they actually start off by explaining, though not very well, the treaty. They are still fucktards and take the wrong view on the treaty but they don't completely ignore the fact that Russia reduces its nukes too. Seriously Young Turks, if you have to edit a Fox News segment to make them look like liars you aren't trying hard enough and are being deceptive yourself.
KidOmniMan 1 year ago
Shit, now the US and Russia will only be able to each destroy the world 3 times over instead of 4.
KidOmniMan 1 year ago
John Bolton should be arrested and sent to Devil's Island and then drill a hole down to hell so satan can come and get him.. he has so much blood on his hands from all the evil he has done during his lifetime ...people think that Hitler was the greatest mass murderer in history.. but there are people living today who have caused more people to die and suffer than hitler ever thought about...they do it not thru firing the gun but thru indirect means thru others
xadam2dudex 1 year ago 2
@xadam2dudex Bolton is just a water carrier to the likes of Kissinger, the greatest mass murderer in Human history.
nilbud 1 year ago
@nilbud ok, if so do u learning chinese, u like working in chinese working camps?
udical 1 year ago
@udical You must be very very confused to live in such stupid fear. You're crying because the Chinese are coming for you and your protector is John fucking Bolton. Man blow your head off, your mind is fucked.
nilbud 1 year ago
@nilbud no i just know what colectivism is, and chiese want to come, they are already in cuba, venezuela, ecuador, north sudan, burma, north korea, bolivia...... and they hate white imperialist with capital, can with capital they mean more than 5 000$
udical 1 year ago
Both sides are full of shit. The start treaty reduced our nukes only by a small fraction, it makes no difference. Its utterly pointless, Just an opportunity for politicians and talking heads to grandstand
BorgKing001 1 year ago 2
@BorgKing001 Stupid child.
nilbud 1 year ago
@nilbud yes your are
BorgKing001 1 year ago
I didn't think anyone listened to Bolton anymore... The guy is insane!
KingOfTheKill10001 1 year ago
Someone seriously needs to police Boltons mustache... Or maybe everyone at Fox should get a mustache like him? That'd be awesome ^^
MyTemporaryAccount88 1 year ago
the russians are gonna bomb us because of the dumbasses at fox news
masterkayaki 1 year ago
Cenk should talk about Obama being a liar and a warmonger as well or he's lost credibility.
johnnyreality 1 year ago
@johnnyreality
Obama is a politician, he gets paid to lie. Fox is supposed to be news and should expose lies not create them
Fullskip 1 year ago
Nuclear Weapons will proliferate to 3rd World Countries at an EXPONENTIAL RATE.
We are destined to BLOW OURSELVES UP..... it's only a matter of time!!!
But, it'll be a hell of lIght show...LOL!
UnderseaCaveman 1 year ago
This issue shouldn't even be such a partisan thing as it was. Reducing the number of nuclear weapons all over the world is helpful in many ways. Even Ronald Reagan, which conservatives love to idolize, I once saw a video clip of him making a statement that "A nuclear war can never be won." It just completely amazes me how the Republicans cared more about partisan politics than the safety of not only our country, but the entire world.
erickofspirit 1 year ago
Threre are several flaws with this START treaty: Weak verification mechanisms,The treaty’s failure to address tactical nuclear weapons, where Russia holds a large advantage over the U.S.,The prioritization of signing and ratifying a feel-good treaty over more urgent steps to modernize America’s nuclear arsenal,the U.S. now has no effective seaborne tactical nuclear systems with which to counter North Korea and Iran.)
pathetic
FrankCastlez 1 year ago
Ok Fox, so being able to destroy the world 190 times isn't enough? I think being able to destroy the world once is.. quite excessive.
Xerxes4242 1 year ago
You cannot destroy the world. Plants, insects, fish will survive. Only stupid human beings will kill themselves.
AustrianAtheist 1 year ago 2
@AustrianAtheist no, wrong we have nukes of plenty we could blow up eath 40! times, not to the point of nuklear winter but to blwing the planet into RUBLE
jannikmt 1 year ago
Yes, 50 nukes create a nuclear winter. But most experts agree that even with all nuclear weapons some human beings would survive. It is clear, that nuclear weapons cannot kill plants, fish. There have been experiments with ants: ants are extremly resistent towards radiation.
There have also been studies on the nuclear winter: The population in the poor countries would die, but in the industrialized world, with efficient food supply the survival rate will be high.
AustrianAtheist 1 year ago
@AustrianAtheist The world you describe sends chills down my spine. What a horrible place that would be. I hope one of the 50 nukes lands on my head.
finerbiner 1 year ago
come out and inform the rest of the world , don`t think that faux news`agenda is well known. infact it is waay beyond silly and dumb for veery long, but while you get used to it , like with the stupidest bully in school, they shape the discourse and the fact that they don`t care about you there, is proof enough that they want to infest everyone everywhere, cause there are also papers and radio and broadcast in the rest of the world they own. keep up, put faux news to rest, they fail you
Realizalize 1 year ago
do russia get to 'track' the american weapons? cause if they dont then thats just bullshit !!!
music4everxeires 1 year ago
On the other hand, he does stand by the strength of his convictions and isn't just parroting the GOP party line.
Remus0387 1 year ago
Tucker Carlson is a twat if the highest order, every thing about screams i'm a conservative so i'm better than you.
Remus0387 1 year ago
was China a party to this treaty?
Cenk is full of Bullshit, again! Russia gave up weapons they were going to get rid of in the first place because they were in a process of modernizing their arsenal whereas we gave up stuff we need a well armed US has prevented a third world war. Why do we need a little Turkish immigrant to tell us it didn't?
genie0390 1 year ago
@genie0390 "Little Turkish immigrant"
HYUK, HE IN'T A REEEL AMURICKIN LAHK WE GOOD OL GOD FEARIN WHYT BOAHZ IZ! HYUK HYUK HYUK
Dipstikk 1 year ago
China? How uneducated are you? Russia and USA have about 95% of all nuclear weapons.
Russia has 12.400 nuclear bombs, USA has 9.500 and China has about 200.
Btw. the US did not say anything, when their allies India, Israel and Pakistan got atomic weapons. Pakistan's program was supported by Saudi Arabia, who maybe also have nuclear weapons, but the US always and only talks about iran.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty will become obsolet, when the major powers continue their policies..
AustrianAtheist 1 year ago
@AustrianAtheist
look at you, 20 yrs old and already a graduate fool!
how do you know how many such weapons China has? they confide in you? Besides, the point is while US and Russia are reducing and diminishing their strength, China is free to do what it wants
if u don't see the difference between India, Israel and Iran, ur a lost cause! The former 2 are stable democracies whereas Iran is run by a bunch of super fanatics called "twelvers" who want to start world war 3
wise up
genie0390 1 year ago
What is the difference between Pakistan and Iran? Please tell me! Btw. your ally Saudi Arabia has helped Pakistan to develop nukes and probably have access to them too. Saudi Arabia is your ally, yet they have death penalty for apostasy, oppose democracy and so on.
The US invades country after country, yet you claim it is china, that can do what it wants...lol...
Why should China, France, UK or countries reduce their few nukes, when the countries with 95% of all nukes cannot even START?
AustrianAtheist 1 year ago
@AustrianAtheist
Pakistan is dangerous Country too which should not be trusted but Iran is far worse in that it is a State sponsor of terrorist groups and is run by radicals called the "twelvers" who would like to see world chaos so that the Imam who is in hiding would return to life and install islam world wide. People who are suicidal should have no access to any weapons let alone nuclear weapons
China has a history of invading too. it invaded Tibet, Viet nam, Korea, India, wants Taiwan
genie0390 1 year ago
@genie0390
Genie is at it again, all the countries bush liked are good, and all the other ones are bad right?
Grow up genie get over the twelvers thing FFS. Austrian Atheist pointed out how Saudi are up to there necks in terrorism (see the nationalities of the 911 hijackers for proof) and yet you just skip over those facts as they dont fit in to your argument.
Oh and by the way..... unless your 100% American Indian your a little immigrant too!
Fullskip 1 year ago
@Fullskip
why don't you grow a brain?
twelvers are very dangerous in that they are in control of a Country trying to build nuclear weapons. the 9/11 hijackers were wahhabi idiots that belong back in the 7/8th century
anyone born in the US is not an immigrant you freakin moron, you listen to pandering politicians looking for votes, not wishing to offend any minority group so they talk stupid talk
an immigrant is one who is born in one Country and then movers to another to become a citizen
genie0390 1 year ago
@genie0390
ha what a moron.
So the 12ers are bad but the wahabi's are just misguided?
Moron
Fullskip 1 year ago
Sigh, still having faith in humanity is so hard these days with liars shouting at the top of there lungs in the name of "conservatism."
sikvenum82 1 year ago
@sikvenum82 Took the words right out of my mouth. The human race could be so much better...but instead we're too busy enslaving and hating one another. I hope I see a day when our species moves a little closer to maturity. Peace
Futurist2029 1 year ago
@sikvenum82
oh those lying conservatives!! There really has been WW3 but the conservatives are lying by saying nuclear weapons prevented it
shame, shame
genie0390 1 year ago
"Why does it make the world a safer place when the US gets ride of it's own nuclear weapons? Isn't it a strong well armed America the key to harmony in this world"?
"Of Course it is"!
I rest my case, the republicans are bat-sh•t crazy WAR MONGERS!
While we spend trillions on weapons, China laughs at us while they quietly take over!
Carlson, Bolton are an insult and an embarrassment to the this nation! At least they are paid well to be so!
TruthAndMoreTruth 1 year ago
What do you expect from these two guys? Bolton was so unqualified for his position as UN Ambassador that the only way he got to serve in that position was for a recess appointment by a feeble-minded president because no right thing Congress would dare appoint such a hawkish idiot to an important diplomatic post. And, as for Tucker...look at him. His grandmother still dresses him. He's a joke.
FlatulenceFox 1 year ago
John Bolton is a dinosaur who truly believes in Pax Americana. I don't presume to know more about national security than he does, but when a man like this is able to ignore the advice, reasoning and documentation of dozens of other experts and organizations that refute his thinking, from both sides of the political spectrum, one must consider if he is living in some sort of grandiose delusion that he knows better than anyone else. god help us if he ever holds a position of influence again.
tyrannosaurusinf14 1 year ago
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units. . . Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country." (Colin Powell's autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148)
TheCaliCapitalist 1 year ago
Americas strength is air superiority and boots on the ground.Nukes have become a strategic weapon the brains in NATO are working on getting as little bag for the buck as they can. If they have to use nukes they want pin point accuracy not massive damage. On the ground in the middle east they want as little contact as possible between soldiers and civilians to discourage rape and prostitution. Something that did not happen with the British and the soviets.
bigcomcast 1 year ago
Our nuclear arsenal really kept us safe on September 11, 2001.
TruthIsSin 1 year ago
Why is Tucker still employed in this economy? What is the affirmative action program keeping him in the labor force?
BTW, which war did John Bolton fight?
amoeba12 1 year ago
How the fuck did John Bolton become US Ambassador to the UN? Really...WTF. Thank God he's out. Neo-con trash.
OmarAlQaseer 1 year ago
How the fuck did John Bolton become US Ambassador to the UN. Really...WTF. Thank God he's out. Neo-con trash.
OmarAlQaseer 1 year ago
you'll all regret getting rid of the nukes when the aliens come!
Pull0utBoy 1 year ago 2
John Bolton's a disingenuous blow hard. A while back he kept appearing on the BBC on certain topics related to Britain/ Europe (from a US perspective), every time he got nearly all of his facts wrong. Two crackers that stand out were his insistence an independent Kosovo would fail, and not understanding that Scotland and England are actually two countries in Union with one another, and have their own jurisdictional law systems. Guess he never heard of the 1707 Acts of Union & what preceded it.
MrDragon1968 1 year ago
Overmilitarisation wrecked the Soviet Union. That is how the West won the Cold War. Now the US is having problems because they could not downsize its military after they won.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
Bolton is anti-Reagan, and anti-American.
So is Fox News.
WorldSutra 1 year ago
1 Word: REAGAN
atheistveganheathan 1 year ago
I also can't believe all the morons who have completely forgotten *why* we signed the ABM treaties.. you'd think you'd remember why the whole Reagan "Star Wars" thing was important?
Anti ABM treaties are why we only had like 5,000 nukes and not 20,000 or more. it prevented a race about what percentage of nukes make it through to assure destruction. the more nukes an unstable russia has, the more likely iran or whomever will "buy" one..
so START is GOOD for us!
duh..
dreamcoyote 1 year ago
John Bolton is one of the biggest manure producers in the world. Sir Tony Benn put him in his place on Question Time in the UK.
Retire already, Bolton.
mynameis677 1 year ago
Isn't 1500 nukes still enough to destroy the world?
spartan5127v2 1 year ago
@spartan5127v2
Depends on the yield. Since this is a strategic treaty, those weapons are some 300kt-2Mt (and perhaps beyond) in yield.
Hiroshima was 21kt, the yield of a modern tactical nuke.
Tounushi 1 year ago
@Tounushi The fact is, that if a hiroshima sized bomb hit New York, the whole area would become a toxic hellhole like Ground Zero. Hiroshima was pretty low rise. Modern cities are not. If a terrorist gets their hands on one of the former Soviet nukes and leaves it in any city that has skyscrapers, the skyscrapers themselves would make the weapon much worse.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
@dangerouslytalented
I was only illustrating.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both ~20kt, and even the weakest strategic weapon is over ten times as powerful, so one could easily imagine the raw devastation of such a bomb.
But you have a very good point with the topography and the types of buildings in the area.
The reason the slightly weaker Hiroshima blast was much more devastating than the one in Nagasaki was because Hiroshima was surrounded by hills, slightly containing the blastwave.
Tounushi 1 year ago
@spartan5127v2 lol 50 is enough
cloudvszell 1 year ago
Right now this country is dying at the hands of corporate criminals.
Right now the government is spying on it's own citizens in the name of "state security"
Right now we are fighting two wars.
Right now we have allowed imbeciles entry into high office (tea party).
Right now this country is about to go bankrupt.
Right now the religious right has far too much political power.
Right now we are we are being lied to by the media
Right now we're allowing torture to happen in our nations name
Metalmeltdown1000 1 year ago 44
This has been flagged as spam show
@Metalmeltdown1000 everyone that needs to understand these things are too far gone to ever accept these facts
xadam2dudex 1 year ago
@Metalmeltdown1000 And so a prudent question: what do you intend to DO about it? The French Revolution didn't just happen because people were aggrieved, but because they were impassioned to change the system as it stood. What are you doing?
BeholdZeus 1 year ago
@Metalmeltdown1000 Right now the voter turnout would be under 50%
nilbud 1 year ago
We have more nukes than every single country combined. Why do we need that many? We can blow up every country in the world 500 times over but conservatives want more.
spinnersmetal 1 year ago 6
@spinnersmetal Not really important to say, but I'll say it anyway, America does not in fact have that many nukes. Russia actually currently has a significantly larger number of warheads than America due to a treaty signed in 2001 to reduce warheads, and the fact that the US reached its reduction goal faster than Russia.
TehUberTrekkie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Isn't a strong well armed America the key to harmony in this world?"
How the hell does someone equate more weaponry to more peace? Better yet, what kind of ignorant and deluded person would sit at home and agree with this?
Saaduk92 1 year ago
AMERICA NEEDS TO HAVE ENOUGH NUKES TO BOMB EVERY MAJOR COUNTRY IN THE WORLD ONE-HUNDRED TIMES OVER YOU STUPID COMMIE SCUMBAG LIBERALS WHO WANT ALL AMERICANS TO DIE AND KIM JONG-IL TO RUN THE WORLD!!!
- this bit of sarcasm brought to you by
*Corporations: fucking you in the ass every day....you're welcome! :)
dieyou2000 1 year ago 4
Funny how he shows that Republicans think there is no such things as doing something just for the sake of being "kind." Typical heartless Republican mentality.
Next, their God, Reagan, wanted to limit nukes held by world powers. Also, how many nukes do we need to destroy the world? Do we need enough to destroy the world 100x instead of 50x?
Lastly, why is Carlson still on tv and pretending to be educated on anything? He doesn't hold a college degree. Another uneducated host at Fox
dfrutled 1 year ago 3
@dfrutled They hate everything that is against their own narrative. Even if it benefits everybody long term.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
I do not think Carlson knows what a treaty means. He should have a tea party with Christine O'Donnell and discuss her anti-masturbation campaign.
md991free 1 year ago
Here is the problem wit FOX "News". Cenk has to sit here and explain the basics of what a treaty is. Tucker Carlson and John Bolten aren't so stupid that they simply don't grasp the concept of a treaty. They know exactly what they are doing. They are simply lying to their audience out-right.
It is one thing to spin the truth to work with your agenda. But this clip is an example of an out-right lie. FOX's audience needs to know that they are being lied to.
krebul 1 year ago 50
@krebul "FOX's audience needs to know that they are being lied to."
Problem is they like the lies more than the truth.
qmaqdk 1 year ago 3
@qmaqdk problem is that some of them are too lazy or stubborn to go see the other point of view.
dadumbazz 1 year ago
@krebul if only they had the intelligence to understand...if they did they wouldn't have accepted the lie in the first place..they are simple minded, brainwashed and have significantly impaired cognitive functioning..if anyone doubts that watch any of the videos of tea baggers being interviewed at their rallies...it's embarrassing
xadam2dudex 1 year ago
Americuuuh
WigglyMalmsteam 1 year ago
And the world was really safe when the USA nuked Japan, even though the war was already over de facto.
YouDice 1 year ago
I kinda assumed carlton was selling his ass on the street after he got fired from Crossfire...
OdinLowe 1 year ago
The START treaty needs to be delayed until a Republican administration can come in and take credit for it.
HomleandSecurity 1 year ago
Fuck, what a pair these two dopes are. Reduce our nuclear capabilities? We currently have between 12,000-40,000 warheads, the large range is due to the secrecy of our government and the bogus stockpile cut we claimed after the cold war. How many warheads are needed to destroy the entire world? I imagine we have enough to do this thousands of times. There is no sane or reasonable reason for having so many nukes, any argument against this treaty or any other in reducing nukes is incomprehensible.
TheUSMetalhead 1 year ago
@TheUSMetalhead the combined nuclear weapons that have ever been built could not "destroy the world," though I guess it depends upon what you mean by "destroy the world."
The original models for nuclear winter were seriously flawed (using an earth that was a perfect sphere). using nukes to "wipe out the human race" is even questionable, since any nuclear exchange would result in most weapons never being brought to bear, and humans being spread out across the globe.
XSC3 1 year ago
@TheUSMetalhead but yes, it's safe to say that there are enough nukes out there to "bomb us back into the stone age." considering the major powers would be knocked out, and the economy of the world is tied to these nations, there would be worldwide chaos and millions would probably die (not just from the bombing itself or effects of radioactive fallout). it would be disastrous for humanity. but this talk of "destroying the world many times over" is exaggerated at best, fantasy at worst
XSC3 1 year ago
Someone tell me where did Tucker put his bowtie? Did someone show him a mirror?
ooMONKEYoo 1 year ago
"Isn't a strong well armed America the key to harmony in this world?"
I smell imperialism and world policing. We do not need 30x the amount of nuclear warheads to destroy the world over. This treaty is a message, that warring nations should not excell in progress, that we deserve a better world than the militant functioning police country of America. So too to other nations, less military funding, more infrastructure.
drpeppa2357 1 year ago 2
@drpeppa2357 "War is Peace". Fox News following the idea of a perfect Orwellian Society, and most people won't even notice.
Relyt22 1 year ago
John Bolton should shove his big Amygdala where the sun don't shine...This pussy his losing it again!
hashimirasama 1 year ago
there was no reason to invade Iraq, 9/11 was a conspiracy orchestrated by the bush administration, used to justify invading Iraq.
Zeldagigafan90210 1 year ago
Wow, America having weapons of mass destruction is the key to world peace? Jesus H. Christ, this guy is a moron. How in the world can anyone watch Fox and take it seriously?
ContraofTheUnion 1 year ago
@ContraofTheUnion the whole philosophy of having nukes ensuring peace was a logical theory according to M.A.D. the trouble is that now you don't have two relatively equal super powers standing toe to toe with noone else to oppose them.
XSC3 1 year ago
@ContraofTheUnion instead you have lots of little nations with a few nukes each saber rattling their neighbors (India/Pakistan, North Korea, etc). You also have the fact that you can't use nukes against a nebulous threat like "terrorists" so nukes are not much use in the "modern" war on terror for example, which is a serious weakness of a nuclear arsenal. so it once made sense but the world has changed since the USSR dissolved
XSC3 1 year ago
liberals and conservatives will evolve into separate species. The liberals will be the smarter ones and will cause the conservatives to go extinct the same way Cro Magnun did to the Neanderthal.
ffunit 1 year ago
Comment removed
ffunit 1 year ago
There is no way to address the deficit without addressing nuclear weapons decreases. If you call yourself a fiscal conservative you can not disagree, unless you are an hypocrite, liar or just plain stupid.
finerbiner 1 year ago
@finerbiner Well conservative and stupid go hand in hand.
ContraofTheUnion 1 year ago
Isn't having MORE BOMBS safer!?
LMFAO unbelievable!
upplsuckimcool16 1 year ago
You're being redundant, Cenk. As soon as you've said, "Tucker Carlson and John Bolton", we already know silliness will ensue.
Also, Turkish Lewis Black at 1:36
dEdGrimley 1 year ago
UN REAL these guys... so they use they "Out of the kindness of their hearts they will reduce nuclear weaponry"
So then I ask... Ok "so out of the kindness of their hearts they won't drop coverage to still borns fro pre-existing conditions? out of the kidness of their hearts they won't make crap loans to buy stock into and sell before it explodes? Out of the kindness of their hearts they won't use extra tax revenue to save more money by exporting jobs to Sri Lanka?" I could go on but no room.
upplsuckimcool16 1 year ago
UN REAL these guys... so they use they "Out of the kindness of their hearts they will reduce nuclear weaponry"
So then I ask... Ok "so out of the kindness of their hearts they won't drop coverage to still borns fro pre-existing conditions? out of the kidness of their hearts they won't make crap loans to buy stock into and sell before it explodes? Out of the kindness of their hearts they won't use extra tax revenue to save more money by exporting jobs to Sri Lanka?" I could go on but no room.
upplsuckimcool16 1 year ago
do they not realise that dismantling nukes is a job that defence contractors could be involved in. lots of government money for private businesses.
rarrmonkey 1 year ago
Honestly I think the United States getting rid of nuclear weapons is the best idea I've ever heard. Personally it fucking scares that they have the weapons in the first place. I live in Canada and with our large oil and fresh water reserves we might look like a very good target for the United States to invade.
monamour2111 1 year ago
send this guy to the front lines in aFganistan......
rextrek 1 year ago
Thank you for coming on to Fox News. May I ask you a leading question?
spazfox 1 year ago
0:50 - Ya know why they believe that? Cause it's true.
jasonsgroovemachine 1 year ago
Isn't a strong well armed America the key to harmony in this world?
No. It's a retarded expression of cowardice in a world which is way way past that primitive fucking nonsense.
nilbud 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nilbud "It's a retarded expression of cowardice" Precisely! It's America's imperialistic tendencies that have ruined it's reputation in the world. It's time for a new foreign policy that puts an end to nation building.
Diatonic5th 1 year ago
America was the only one to ever use it in the context of war. What could POSSIBLY qualify the US as a lesson-giver on nuclear weapons?
Riselikethetide 1 year ago
fox news audience has the world view of children.
hollaboutit 1 year ago
"Isn't a strong, well-armed America the key to harmony in the world?"
What a fucking sick delluded question.
Tell that the Palestinians, the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Vietnamese, the Cambodians, the Japanese, the Nicaraguans, the Cubans, hell all of South America and all of the Middle East!
nomis101uk 1 year ago 3
Only enough nukes to destroy the world 100 times over rather than 1000 times over, great!!
eldridgepaul 1 year ago
We are cutting ours, Russias are expiring out of date. And can't afford to build more. So we are cutting ours.
jimisback 1 year ago
@jimisback Actually Russian RS-24 was tested in 2007 and deployed in 2010. 1 missile can carry up to 10 independently targetable warheads. If US weren't provoking with the rocket shield, Russians wouldn't bother making new nukes. But even the old Topol M is designed to avoid the rocket shield.
BonScottAC 1 year ago 2
@BonScottAC The WARHEADS have or are expiring and those are what they are cutting. Not the rocket system.
jimisback 1 year ago
Cutting nuclear weapons is a bad thing? Fuck you, Fox.
SAFC442 1 year ago
Fox News never ceases to amaze me. Unfortunately they prey on older folk like my mother using their fear and ignorance to manipulate in a not particularly positive way. It really is wrong.
dannon2010 1 year ago
Bolton is a loser anyways.
Thayer79 1 year ago
Nuclear winter should solve the global warming issue though. Does anybody know how many nuclear retaliations there would need to be for that? There is a limit to how many nukes can go off before it is globally deadly right?
Thayer79 1 year ago
Bolton is and allways have been a go at war...
Melpheos1er 1 year ago
@Melpheos1er "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered the war in Vietnam already lost."
nilbud 1 year ago
@nilbud he likes wars done by others
Melpheos1er 1 year ago
I didn't realize those two guys were still alive.
steveoboston 1 year ago
I THINK ana has lost some weiight
xxjayfrostxx 1 year ago
A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION only has one practical application. Think about it.
TheProf1988 1 year ago
War is Peace ... where have I heard that before?
kjdayton 1 year ago
A "treaty" is as only as good as the "strength" that backs it up.
Just as a defenseless PERSON is far more likely to be the victim of a predatory person, so is a defenseless SOCIETY...
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName So you have to have tooooons of freaking nukes to be "defended"? The treaty is not that anyone should just throw away every single weapon they own, you know.
AsifIcarebear3 1 year ago
@AsifIcarebear3 I don't usually speak in platitudes, but at times they are just dead on:
"Weapons don't make war, people make war"
Accepting this as accurate, then the opposite must also be true;
Lack of weapons doesn't make peace, people (must) make peace.
A weapon is nothing more than a tool. They can be used either, to harm people, or to defend them from harm. This depends on the persons who have the weapons, not the weapons themselves.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName But does it make peace to have enough nukes to destroy the planet many times over? Wikipedia states the US has about 2500 active warheads. Even if that is inaccurate, do you not agree that a number even close to that high is completely and utterly unnecessary to "defend" yourself?
"Weapons don't make war, people make war"? If you have no weapons people will not be able to wage war against each other. If no one has any nukes, there is no threat of nukes.
AsifIcarebear3 1 year ago
@AsifIcarebear3 Clearly, the number of nukes we have is more than we need, but so what. Who are they hurting? Also these nukes cost ridiculous amounts of money to build, n now we're going to turn around n spend ridiculous amounts of money to break them down, why?
That part about 'no weapons no war' is Utopian thinking, n is not applicable to real life. People who want to go to war, will go to war. If they don't have any weapons, they'll build some. So, we best be able to defend ourselves
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName Because it cost Ridicules amounts of money to store, maintaine and safe guard them.
Waage83 1 year ago
@Waage83 True, but still FAR less than dismantling them would. They are already built, they are bothering no one, what is the point of this treaty. If they are bothering anybody, I would really like to know WHY! If they (whoever) mean us no harm, then why do they care WHAT, or HOW MANY weapons we have?
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName In the long run you save money AND it is also a political thing from both sides.
Russia is GROWING FAST! and it dose not want to go into another cold war situation.
It's political ideas are stationed around Europe and Eastern Europe.
Now when this treaty is made it is a way for them to create peaceful correspondence so they can focus more on other things.
They are doing the same thing with Europe.
Waage83 1 year ago
@Waage83 What does any of what Russia is doing have to do with our nuclear arsenal. Their economic growth is unrelated to "peaceful correspondence". Poor or rich, if they want to have peaceful relations with us, they will have peaceful relations.
If they cannot have peaceful relations with us, because we are a military power, then that's a problem in and of itself, but it's THEIR problem. You're suggesting that a society should adapt its behavior, to make someone else happy. Unacceptable...
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
You're suggesting that societies should submit to the will of outside influences, because something about them is not to their liking. This is ridiculous
Look don't get me wrong, I am not saying that societies can just do whatever they please and the rest of the world be damned, we all must share this world, but things about us, or any society that does not DIRECTLY affect others are not their business. Unless you mean us harm, or think we mean you harm, our weapons are not your concern.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName I'm not suggesting the USA should stop doing some little irrelevant thing that doesn't affect anyone. I'm saying that no country should have a weapon capable of laying waste to entire freaking cities, or more, rendering that area toxic for many years. It's a weapon that should never have been brought to existence, and it's time to destroy them. You just like the idea of having the biggest penis on the block. You never get to have sex with it, you just like it. Stupid.
AsifIcarebear3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AsifIcarebear3 "I'm not suggesting the USA should stop doing some little irrelevant thing that doesn't affect anyone. I'm saying that no country should have a weapon capable of laying waste to entire freaking cities, or more, rendering that area toxic for many years."
IRRELEVANT.
This is my point exactly. You are afraid of the nuclear bomb, so you don't want anyone to have them. Here is the problem; everybody is NOT afraid, and they would do anything to have/get one. What will you do then?
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName
Your argument makes no sense.
The US should keep all its nukes (even though you have admitted it doesnt need them all) for the purpose of maintaining peace.
But the US shouldn't give up some nukes it doesnt need for the purpose of maintaining peace.
Have i got it right? Or will you now commence the back tracking?
Fullskip 1 year ago
@Fullskip No you haven't got it right. I never said a single word about maintaining peace. That was somebody else's argument.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName
Your argument makes no sense.
The US should keep all its nukes (even though you have admitted it doesnt need them all) for the purpose of maintaining a national defense
But the US shouldn't give up some nukes it doesnt need for the purpose of maintaining national defense
Have i got it right? Or will you now commence the back tracking?
Fullskip 1 year ago
...Think about it like this:
Do people really need anything besides food, shelter, water, clothing?
Does that mean they shouldn't have anything besides food, shelter, water, clothing?
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
Comment removed
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fullskip LOL, I like what you did there.
No, the U.S. doesn't need all its nukes, & no, that doesn't mean it should give up (destroy) any of its nukes.
Yes, this time you have got it right. No, there will be no backtracking.
To say a person, or society doesn't need to have, or do a thing, doesn't mean a person, or society shouldn't have, or do a thing. The one, has nothing to do with the other. They are mutually exclusive arguments...
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName You have understanding how international back room politics works and how things look in different country's.
In some ways Russia dose not give a fuck about America and what weapons they have, but the Russian People dose. There are still a view in Russia that America is the big bad guy and the Government in Russia would like to remove that perception.
This is also a way for both the US and Russia to keep a eye on loose nukes.
Waage83 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName You have to see the Broader picture.
After 8 Years of Bush Europe have turned there back on America more or less only friendly and no longer a ally
With this and Russia's growth in power it has made it a perfect chance for Russia to Project it's power over Europe and it's ideas in a non hostile manor.
This treaty is a perfect way for Russia to go out and SAY "look how peaceful we are" and if America had said no it woudl be even better for Russia.
Waage83 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName Who are they hurting? Since the US isn't the only country with them, agreeing on not having/using nukes seems perfectly reasonable. Having nukes while fighting a war is like having a grenade in a room full of people, where you only fight 1 of them. If you use the grenade, you risk killing everyone. If you all agree on throwing away the grenades, the only one affected by any fistfight will be the two people engaging. And whatever people might join in.
AsifIcarebear3 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName This is my second response. Explain to me why you need nuclear weapons in order to "defend" yourself? What country could hurt you if everyone agreed to destroy their nukes? Are there any countries on the war path? China won't attack you, they'll be owning you in a few years anyway - no reason to destroy their own property. North Korea is too small and would be dealt with easily if they did anything. Russia? Come on now. You could have 0 nukes and it wouldn't matter.
AsifIcarebear3 1 year ago
@AsifIcarebear3 "China won't attack you, they'll be owning you in a few years anyway" Separate issue.
"Come on now. You could have 0 nukes and it wouldn't matter." Hmm, tell that to Tibet, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, etc...
The ability to defend oneself is ESSENTIAL to liberty. For a person, AND for a civilization.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName China not attacking you was an example of a country that you could feasibly need nukes to defend yourself against. "The ability to defend oneself is ESSENTIAL to liberty." and here we are, where you have to explain to me why you need upwards of 2500 nukes - an extremely, extremely potent weapon - in order to "defend" yourself. Why do you need that grenade in the room? You're already on steroids, because the other countries go to the office instead of the gym. See my point?
AsifIcarebear3 1 year ago
@AsifIcarebear3 I don't believe I ever said we NEEDED so many nukes.
It isn't a question of need, but of sovereignty. It's not the place of any country to decide the internal policies of another (yes, I'm aware my govt is guilty of this very thing). If my govt and Russia's decide to reduce our nuclear arsenals, then fine, if not ALSO fine. Personally I would never do the latter. Not because I fear any society out there is intending any harm, but because I don't WANT to fear it.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName Second response. You won't fear anything if you all agree on breaking your nukes. As I said, your country is on steroids, army/military/whatever wise. The point is you can defend yourself just fine without having nukes. If everyone agreed on breaking their nukes you'd actually stand stronger, because a nuke can take care of a pretty damn big army. Without them, you won't have to worry about them. Or do you want to have another cold war? It's like arguing with a door.
AsifIcarebear3 1 year ago
@AsifIcarebear3 This world was FAR more bloody, brutal, savage, and warring (up until this ridiculous 'war on terror'), BEFORE the advent of the nuclear weapon, than it has been since. So historically, your argument just doesn't hold up.
Also a cold war is MUCH preferable to a hot one. The soldiers that would have to fight such wars, my fellow citizens, their sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, and brothers and sisters, are much more important to me than anybody's 'comfort level'.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName Okay, fine, let's follow your logic, shall we?! What if the USA invented a weapon that could destroy, literally eradicate, an entire country and its citizens from the face of the earth. Think death star. Since the USA has this weapon, many other countries feel that they need it too in order to "defend" themselves. If anyone goes to war, or even just pisses off another country, they risk being incinerated at a moments notice. Would it be "okay" for all countries to have this?
AsifIcarebear3 1 year ago
@AsifIcarebear3
Yes. Actually, it would be more like IMPERATIVE.
Think about what you are saying, nobody could win such a war. The very idea is ridiculous. What country would be ABLE to make war with such a weapon? It would be a decision to initiate the end of days.
Unless only ONE country had such a weapon. Think about it.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName So you're saying countries shouldn't break down their nukes but make more? And encourage other countries to make nukes as well, so we won't have to fear each others nukes? Because by your logic, if we all have them no one will use them, right? Why don't YOU think about what you're saying. If no one has any nukes, where is the fear of nukes? You can't tell me with a straight face that you prefer a world where countries have to have nukes in order to feel "defended".
AsifIcarebear3 1 year ago
@AsifIcarebear3 This will NEVER again be a world where no one has nukes. That's like saying we should get rid of all the guns, it's absurd. What's done is done, all that's left is to deal with it.
I hope you have heard/read the story of Pandora's box. This is that. What you want is simply not possible.
Look I want the same thing you do; everybody on an even playing field. Your way can't get us there.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName What? Of course we can get to a point where no one has nukes. It won't be easy, but it's something we should aim for.
Your way of getting to an even playing field dictates that every country should have nukes to not fear nukes. That's foolish. No country should have a weapon that powerful. Besides, the US has waaay more nukes than needed to "defend" itself. You could destroy the earth 50times over. Or maybe that "protection" isn't enough for you?
AsifIcarebear3 1 year ago
@AsifIcarebear3 I see you didn't get my Pandora's Box reference.
The knowledge of how to build nukes will continue to exist, even if nukes don't. What's to stop any country at war from building one, if say they are losing a conventional war? Nothing, and we are right back where we started.
I don't see any reason for my country to build more nukes (update them, yes), but I also don't see any reason to destroy them either.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName Building a nuke isn't something you "just" do. You see no reason to destroy them? Have you read nothing of what I said? Using nuclear warheads doesn't just affect the target country/location, but risks the entire world - dust being blown up into the atmosphere, creating a new ice age. Or at the very least radioactive waste killing thousands if not millions. If we all destroy our nukes, no one will have to fear them. It's very, very simple. To be continued
AsifIcarebear3 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName Part two. If you, then, think a country is building them, you should of course be allowed to investigate said country.
Also, "What's to stop any country at war from building one, if say they are losing a conventional war? ", I ask again: What country do you see yourself going to war against any time soon, that would require you to have upwards of 2500 nukes up your sleeve, just so that you can "defend" yourself? Nukes is a way too potent weapon to have even 1 of.
AsifIcarebear3 1 year ago