I give up. The Leftists are right. The world is a dangerous place because American is too powerful. We should unilaterally disarm. Let's tally up all of our nukes & divide them evenly between Poland, the European Slavic countries, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Korea, & Iran.

The only reason Korea & the Middle-Eastern countries are acting up now is because they are intimidated by our undue military superiority.

Only when the rest of the world feels completely safe from U.S. imperial aggression & we humble ourselves to the rest of the world will the world community be truly a safe place to live.

"Americans are dangerous!" Nancy cried through her crocodile tears...

hussein unilaterally gave away SDI, our biggest bargaining chip (though bargaining it away is criminally negligent in my view) just before we enter arms negotiations with Russia makes hussein the best negotiator …for the Rodina…since soviet agent and dp hero alger hiss represented the USA in the un charter negotiations (the un always seems to be rigged against the USA and for advancing socialism, because it is). It promises to be a great 4 years for world socialism and dar al islam, hussein will make sure we won’t be able to interfere much with the islamist and communist expansion and consolidation after he is gone.

Hussein is only interested in abolishing OUR nuclear weapons, he could obviously care less about anybody else’s, ask lil’ kim and the mad mullahs. He won’t say boo to them. If hussein was just ignorant or stupid on foreign policy and defense, he would occasionally ‘err’ on the side of America.

You said "None of it makes any difference one way or the other as long as our borders are swiss cheese for possible dirty bombs."

Exactly! Could not agree more.

Although, I would argue that dorking with our nuclear policy could have serious ramifications in terms of an arms race. It terms of our immediate and short term security - it means bupkis.

Can you give me the email and blog info one more time. I will make time for it.

Don't forget my email!!!

Do you really think we Korea believes we will ever nuke it without being provoked?

Joyce M/B.............you left the door unlocked and IVAN got into the comic books a'gin.........

IVAN........buddy.....take the lil' pink one and one o' those green an' yellow pills.........good boy.....

Ok, so we have what.. 20,000 nukes? Why? Well, because there was a final push in the arms race in the 1980's, when Reagan cut taxes, increased spending, almost tripled our national debt from $1T to nearly $3T and ran record deficits to build more nukes than we would ever reasonably need, because he knew the Soviets would reciprocate and they didn't have as strong an economy as the US (because we have magic fiat money). We didn't win the cold war because we had nukes, we won the cold war because we were able to make more nukes than the Soviets, and we bankrupted them. Well, we're still carrying that 1980's debt over our heads and we're paying to maintain an outdated and unnecessary arsenal.

What are nukes good for? Making one hell of a statement, that’s what. Oh, and killing indiscriminately. We now have smart bombs, missiles that can go down a chimney when launched from the other side of the world, armed UAV’s, and satellite intelligence that allows that kind of necessary precise targeting. None of that was available in the 80's, so we had to use fear to keep any opposition in line... fear of leaders having their entire city annihilated. Well, now those same officials can still harbor fear, since we can take them out with smart bombs. So, aside from scaring the innocent population surrounding opposition leadership, what good are nukes?

I say that we begin to tear down a significant portion of our aging, outdated arsenal, and repurpose the fissile materials into fuel for nuclear power. It would be far more prudent, from a national security perspective, to use those resources to provide energy domestically, rather than importing it from Iran and Venezuela. This would serve to reduce our trade deficit, which is the primary reason why tax cuts aren’t good for our economy… we get a tax cut and the money gets shipped overseas instead of stimulating the economy and sending more revenue to the government to pay their (our) debts.

I bet I'll be called a liberal because I want our government to balance their damn checkbook. One who decides to call me a liberal ought to ask themselves, 'what is so conservative about spending money that isn't there to maintain a nuclear arsenal against an enemy who has been defeated?' If you feel this is necessary, please take up the mantle of responsibility in your community and lobby your representatives to have your taxes raised. If it’s important enough to keep, it should be important enough that you’re willing to pay extra for it, since we’re not paying for it right now.

I love the way tshirt-doctor rewrites history, as though it happened the way his foggy brain imagines.

If you want peace, prepare for war. We had cut back on our weapons before Pearl Harbor, too. A big pantload of good that got us.

Anybody wanna bet Obama takes the title of "worst president ever" (from Jimmy)? I think it's going to be a slam dunk.

I'm still in shock that a sitting president would appear on Letterman....no class.

"World Peace should not be the ultimate goal for either party. Supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States should be the ultimate goal for either party."

I think I love you man!

i remember that. it was when americans loved peace instead of war. too bad it isn't as popular now, though.

we should cut all of our land based nuclear missiles, and only go with our sub based nukes. those land base nukes are old hat.

there is another thing that is old hat. that is us paying for and building european defensive measures. the EU is richer than the US.

World Peace should not be the ultimate goal for either party. Supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States should be the ultimate goal for either party.

We are better off reducing our stockpiles now versus later. In this century every country that wants nukes is likely to have them, including Venezuela, Iran, etc. Taking a world view, an all out nuclear war is much more likely to be started by an Iranian type state than an all for nothing nuclear strike by the US or Russia. Disarming or reducing the stockpiles of nukes gives nuclear countries the moral ground to disarm more rogue type nations. This also negates the argument from rogue states, such as North Korea, that they are only building up nukes as a deterrent to a nuclear US.

Obama is a genius. After this guy gets finished decimating the entire American infrastructure, and weakening and demoralizing our military, he's going to run for re-election on the slogan

OBAMA 2012--MAKE AMERICA STRONG AGAIN

and he knows there are just enough fools out there to gobble it down without even chewing.

I'm actually ok with a cut in nuclear weapons. It only takes 5 to wipe Russia off the face of the earth and probably 25 or so to destroy the world. They also are very expensive to maintain. I would be ok with ONLY a hundred ICBM's in the US arsenal. Not every cut in defense makes us less safe. There is a marginal utility in nuclear weapons and I think the difference in maintaining 2,000 warheads and 200. Not that Obama's going to do this but the military needs to be streamlined and audited. Estimates say that the military cannot account for up to 25% of what it spends.

Thanks for the Minuteman II picture, but they were taken off alert in 1991. Many were replaced with Minuteman III's starting in 1992.