That is fucking awesome. They actually went to break with that? Holy shit.

'Will Obama leave the US defenseless?' <mushroom cloud>

wow.

Stay classy Fox News.

They need to be called out on this and have this approach squashed as soon as possible; less there's a chance that some poeple are ignorant of cold war propoganda and this actually catches on again.

>> ^KnivesOut:

Stay classy Fox News.


Awww, beat me to it =)

AND they are using the ol' chestnut of 'some people say', or in this case 'critics say'.

IE. Fucking no-one has to actually say it, THEY say it and attribute it to the nameless 'some people' or 'critics'.

Fucking terrible.

Stay classy Fo-... godammit, Knives!!

Hold on, now, let's earnestly consider Fox News' point before calling them out. We may only be able to blow up the entire goddamned earth 3 times over instead of 5 by the time this deal is done.

Stay classy Fox!


*Yeah, I know, but this is worth saying a few times for this vid.

>> ^Kevlar:

Hold on, now, let's earnestly consider Fox News' point before calling them out. We may only be able to blow up the entire goddamned earth 3 times over instead of 5 by the time this deal is done.


Oh, just to make sure I'm not exaggerating: let's take a look at our old friend, nuclear winter. Turns out you only need 50 bombs to destroy the earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

"A minor nuclear war with each country using 50 Hiroshima-sized atom bombs as airbursts on urban areas, could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. A nuclear war between the United States and Russia today could produce nuclear winter, with temperatures plunging below freezing in the summer in major agricultural regions, threatening the food supply for most of the planet. The climatic effects of the smoke from burning cities and industrial areas would last for several years, much longer than previously thought. New climate model simulations, that are said to have the capability of including the entire atmosphere and oceans, show that the smoke would be lofted by solar heating to the upper stratosphere, where it would remain for years.

Compared to climate change for the past millennium, even the smallest exchange modeled would plunge the planet into temperatures colder than the Little Ice Age (approximately 1600-1850). This would take effect instantly, and agriculture would be severely threatened. Larger amounts of smoke would produce larger climate changes, and for the 150 Tg case produce a true nuclear winter, making agriculture impossible for years. In both cases, new climate model simulations show that the effects would last for more than a decade."

@Kevlar, Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons are pretty small. We dropped conventional bombs on Iraq with higher yields, though granted their energy is more concussive than thermal.

I'll let my avatar speak for itself on this one:

emote emote emote!
don't think....just emote....
basic psychology to control the masses.

Despite the weasel words, she does have a point. If the new treaty is ratified by congress, it could reduce our number of deployed warheads to a mere 1,550. We all know that's enough to destroy all Multicellular life on earth. But what if Mars attacks? WHAT IF MARS ATTACKS?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8607985.stm

I'm not so fussed over Obama's agenda here. He ran his campaign with a "get rid of nukes" message mixed in. The Nobel committee gave him a peace prize for his no-nukes rhetoric. It made the NPP a stupid joke, but hey that's what they hung it on. Now conservatives are acting all amazed that he's doing it? Oh noes!

Even the reduction isn't that big a deal. He's just going back to basically the same stance that Carter and Clinton adopted. Fundamentally the policy isn't all that different from past administrations, so it isn't like this is something new and fantastic. It is stupid for conservatives to act like he's going to get rid of all nukes. It is stupid for the liberals to act like Obama has done anything significant or important. This is business as usual. Nothing to see here. Move along.

>> ^entr0py:

Despite the weasel words, she does have a point. If the new treaty is ratified by congress, it could reduce our number of deployed warheads to a mere 1,550. We all know that's enough to destroy all Multicellular life on earth. But what if Mars attacks? WHAT IF MARS ATTACKS?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8607985.stm


did NOT know where you were going with that.

ZOMG WE'RE LIMITED TO 700 ICBMs, submarine-based nuclear launchers, and nuclear-equipped bombers. Instead of being able to wipe out 99.9% of the world's population, we'll only be able to wipe out 99.8%. Stop the presses!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I'm not so fussed over Obama's agenda here. He ran his campaign with a "get rid of nukes" message mixed in. The Nobel committee gave him a peace prize for his no-nukes rhetoric. It made the NPP a stupid joke, but hey that's what they hung it on. Now conservatives are acting all amazed that he's doing it? Oh noes!
Even the reduction isn't that big a deal. He's just going back to basically the same stance that Carter and Clinton adopted. Fundamentally the policy isn't all that different from past administrations, so it isn't like this is something new and fantastic. It is stupid for conservatives to act like he's going to get rid of all nukes. It is stupid for the liberals to act like Obama has done anything significant or important. This is business as usual. Nothing to see here. Move along.


As the Daily Show pointed out he's doing the same stance that Reagan chose.