patrick.net

Obama took the missle defense out of Europe, we're at Russia's mercy whether we like it or not.

We need another Reagan to rid the world of Nukes AGAIN!

Why are Liberals such War Pigs?

Oh shit. We have 7100 and they have 7300? We're fucked. Need... More... Nukes...

NO dipshit we need a defense shield in Europe but Obama the Kenyan terrorist thought better of it.

Totally missed the point.
You don't give away the singular element that has kept WWIII at bay for the past 65 years.
This trend can be reversed in a heartbeat, and you better have the resources to keep up.
A viable strategy for an opponent would be to hoard as much of the opponent's resources as possible prior to ramping up themselves.

YesYNot MAPGA says

Oh shit. We have 7100 and they have 7300? We're fucked. Need... More... Nukes...

Ranina ranina says

Totally missed the point.

You don't give away the singular element that has kept WWIII at bay for the past 65 years.

Jesus Christ. Neither the US nor Russia is limited by raw materials when deciding how many nukes to have on hand. We reduced the number by treaties, where we agreed that the world would be safer if we had less of these to look after. We both still have more than enough to blow the other country to smithereens. I focused on the # of nukes (with my sarcastic comment), b/c you chose to put up that graphic. If you want to focus on the strategic aspect of giving away mineral rights, then you should focus your argument better. Plus, if you look at the amount they harvested from their mine in WY, you will find that it is a very small amount of material.

we need sumone to remember to close their italics.
here we go... hows that?

Totally missed the point.
You don't allow your enemies to own any businesses in your country. They become fronts for spywork, trojan horse infiltration and such.,..
And you don't personally profit from the maneuver as a government representitive...

YesYNot MAPGA says

Jesus Christ. Neither the US nor Russia is limited by raw materials when deciding how many nukes to have on hand. We reduced the number by treaties, where we agreed that the world would be safer if we had less of these to look after.

Whaaaa???

junkmail says

we need sumone to remember to close their italics.

nm i fixed it. Was off topic.. sorry
(coding issue)
Just can't stand to read italics, which every post had become.
On the up side... I just bumped your topic!

Ranina ranina says

Who the fuck in their right mind gives Russia control over any of our uranium (read "nuclear") resources?

The committee for foreign investments. Which isn't under the state department so I really don't know how you or bloomberg manage to tie the clinton foundation in. Hell of a foundation to manage to control so many department heads, councils, and offices. When can we expect you to post documentation tying all these people's decision to the clinton foundation? The twelfth of never I would guess. The just make shit up club is getting bigger and bigger every day.

The members of CFIUS include the heads of the following departments and offices:
Department of the Treasury (chair)
Department of Justice
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of State
Department of Energy
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Office of Science & Technology Policy

The following offices also observe and, as appropriate, participate in CFIUS’s activities:
Office of Management & Budget
Council of Economic Advisors
National Security Council
National Economic Council
Homeland Security Council

Ranina ranina says

This is the poster child of "Treason"...

You want the US to invest in being able to nuke another quarter of the world, when we can obliterate it 10 times over? If it really did matter that they have 200 more warheads, which it doesn't, but if it did ... there is no analysis on the type and yield of warheads or state and deployment and readiness.

I'd much rather have the US military, superior substance, than what Russia has always been since the 60s: cheap numbers and B1ski thinking.

Where you see 'traitor' I see a military focusing on what matters. This isn't 1968.

Then you obviously did not read the Bloomberg article.

bob2356 says

The committee for foreign investments. Which isn't under the state department so I really don't know how you or bloomberg manage to tie the clinton foundation in.

Never said that.
Any more comments stating things that I want that I never indicated verbally or in writ?

Rew says

You want the US to invest in being able to nuke another quarter of the world,

Ranina ranina says

Never said that.

You didn't write much of anything in the OP. You even put treason in quotes, so we have no idea what you mean by that. It's a very vague post, so you have people trying to infer some meaning from your post. If you don't like it, just be clear. It's not complicated.

Hmmm...Russia takes the lead in nuclear weapons....Russia then takes Crimea...Russia installs state of the art anti aircraft weapons in Syria...Russia warns US they have nuclear weapons too when Obama does a baby sword rattle...Russia in process of leveling Aleppo daring USA to do anything about it..

Maybe the game now is whoever leads in nuclear capacity dictates events and outcomes, since the weapons themselves will never be used, other than by terrorists...

Rew says

If it really did matter that they have 200 more warheads, which it doesn't,

Next....

Rosatom’s acquisition of Toronto-based miner Uranium One Inc. made the Russian agency, which also builds nuclear weapons, one the world’s top five producers of the radioactive metal and gave it ownership of a mine in Wyoming.
The deal, approved by a committee that included then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, also followed donations from Uranium One’s Canadian chairman to the Clinton Global Foundation, the New York Times reported on Thursday.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-23/how-putin-s-russia-gained-control-of-a-u-s-uranium-mine

bob2356 says

Ranina ranina says

Who the fuck in their right mind gives Russia control over any of our uranium (read "nuclear") resources?

The committee for foreign investments. Which isn't under the state department so I really don't know how you or bloomberg manage to tie the clinton foundation in

Next...
Since 2013, the nuclear energy arm of the Russian state has controlled 20 percent of America’s uranium production capacity.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-23/how-putin-s-russia-gained-control-of-a-u-s-uranium-mine

YesYNot MAPGA says

Jesus Christ. Neither the US nor Russia is limited by raw materials when deciding how many nukes to have on hand.

Next...

trea·son
ˈtrēzən/Submit
noun
the crime of betraying one's country,

YesYNot MAPGA says

You even put treason in quotes, so we have no idea what you mean by that.

Ranina ranina says

Maybe the game now is whoever leads in nuclear capacity dictates events and outcomes, since the weapons themselves will never be used, other than by terrorists...

This sentence makes no sense. You are stating that the weapons will never be used. Therefore, whoever 'leads' in capacity gets to dictate world events. That is illogical.
Putin is getting away with a lot. Part of that is Obama's dovish stance w/r/t Russia, and part of it is Putin taking advantage of the fact that Obama is a lame duck at the moment. Obama doesn't want to start a big conflict on his way out of office, mostly because the next president is the one who will have to prosecute the effort, and SHE should be the one to set the tone. Putin is pushing his luck, though, IMO.

Ranina ranina says

Maybe the game now is whoever leads in nuclear capacity dictates events and outcomes, since the weapons themselves will never be used, other than by terrorists...

I'm sure that's it. If the US could only destroy Russia 10 times over and Russia can destroy the US 11 times over--that would be a huge deterrent.

Ranina ranina says

trea·son

We know what the word means, but when you put it in quotes, you are indicating that you are not using the word literally. If you want to emphasize it, use something else.

Not really. Reagan's buildup of the military, and Russia's lame attempt to keep up, bankrupted them and was the major force in the breakup of the soviet union.
No war between the countries occured, but the US wound up dictating world events for the most part for the next 20 years or so.

YesYNot MAPGA says

This sentence makes no sense. You are stating that the weapons will never be used. Therefore, whoever 'leads' in capacity gets to dictate world events. That is illogical.

I'm not. But it's a viable hypothesis given ....
https://patrick.net/?p=1296936&c=1333414#comment-1333414

Tampajoe says

Ranina ranina says

Maybe the game now is whoever leads in nuclear capacity dictates events and outcomes, since the weapons themselves will never be used, other than by terrorists...

I'm sure that's it. If the US could only destroy Russia 10 times over and Russia can destroy the US 11 times over--that would be a huge deterrent.

Ranina ranina says

Next....

Rosatom’s acquisition of Toronto-based miner Uranium One Inc. made the Russian agency, which also builds nuclear weapons, one the world’s top five producers of the radioactive metal and gave it ownership of a mine in Wyoming.

The deal, approved by a committee that included then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, also followed donations from Uranium One’s Canadian chairman to the Clinton Global Foundation, the New York Times reported on Thursday.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-23/how-putin-s-russia-gained-control-of-a-u-s-uranium-mine

and how exactly did the clinton foundation influence the other 20 or so people on the committee , most of them full department heads none of them under hillary, to approve the deal? Bloomberg wrote it, you believe it should be true, that makes it true. Repeating bullshit multiple times doesn't make it true. Maybe you could try thinking on your own rather than being led around by your nose. Na that would be too hard.

Ranina ranina says

Since 2013, the nuclear energy arm of the Russian state has controlled 20 percent of America’s uranium production capacity.

Active uranium production. Not uranium production capacity. Two very different things. There are literally hundreds of inactive uranium mines that could be reopened at any time if the demand were there. OMG do you mean bloomburg didn't mention that along with skipping the people on the committee besides clinton? Do you suppose this was just sloppy reporting or maybe, just maybe bloomburg shaded the story just a little teeny tiny bit assuming the average trumptard would eat it up no matter what. Oh no say it ain't so joe.

Link?

bob2356 says

Active uranium production. Not uranium production capacity.

She has a provable history of going after others to get her way...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/14/hillary-clinton-haunted-by-efforts-to-destroy-bill/

bob2356 says

and how exactly did the clinton foundation influence the other 20 or so people on the committee

Ranina ranina says

She has a provable history of going after others to get her way...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/14/hillary-clinton-haunted-by-efforts-to-destroy-bill/

So prove it, how did she get the rest of the committee to approve the deal?

Ranina ranina says

Link?

bob2356 says

Active uranium production. Not uranium production capacity.

Not that you would read it but: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/appendices/us-nuclear-fuel-cycle-appendix-1-us-uranium-mining.aspx

Ironman says

bob2356 says

The just make shit up club is getting bigger and bigger every day.

We noticed that every time you post in a thread. Why do you do that?

Grump, grumpy. You did get sticky stuff all over the keyboard thinking about cows and sheep didn't you?

Even the liberal bastion of righteousness, the New York Times, agrees with me...

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

bob2356 says

bob2356 says

Active uranium production. Not uranium production capacity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

I read the 1st page of 14 before realizing it had nothing to do with the question at hand.

bob2356 says

Not that you would read it but: http

By majority vote...

bob2356 says

Ranina ranina says

She has a provable history of going after others to get her way...


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/14/hillary-clinton-haunted-by-efforts-to-destroy-bill/

So prove it, how did she get the rest of the committee to approve the deal?

Why do Rep/Con/Teas allow other countries to have nuclear weapons?
Nixon,Reagan,both Bushes didn't take them.
Rep/Con/Teas allowed outsourcing to Communist China to take stupid american's dollars.
Got enough money ,one can develop nuclear capability.

Fuck R/C/T Christians for allowing the Blaspheming Israel to have nuclear weapons.