Lv 6
SGT. D asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 10 years ago

Should anyone caught knowingly weakening Americas defenses be arrested for treason?

How about a President willingly weakening Americas defenses by negotiating with a former enemy of this country? (Russia)


When Reagan agreed on a Nuke treaty, we were still in the midst of a cold war. Americas nuclear arsenal was huge and out dated. Now without them, our country is vulnerable to the point of not surviving an all out invasion.

14 Answers

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    He's trying to cut military costs to use the money to cover his gigantic socialist health care bill because he knows his re-election is resting on its success. I don't have a problem with ur suggestion. Another treason act was bowing down to a Muslim leader, which means he was showing obedience to another country.

  • Romeo
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    Russia is a former enemy, but remember Reagan's breakthrough in relations in the 1980's. Russia has always sided with the USA against common enemies in the past. In WW2 Communist Russia sided with Allied forces against Hitler's Germany, but only after Hitler breached an agreement with Moscow and launched an invasion of Russia.

    But then, in recent years Russia has been seemingly helping Iran seek nuclear capability mainly because the USA had made an agreement with Poland to build a missile defense base which the US has intended as a Western defense against Iran, N Korea and other regional rogue states.

    Obama has been kissing Russian booty when he scrapped the missile defense installation to try and get Russian cooperation with the West and ratchet up the sanctions against Iran. I think Obama may be playing too weak a hand in Russian negotiations. We don't need to be completely scrapping Nuclear capability.

    If Obama is trying to follow Reagan's lead in Russian relations he should remember that Reagan was for reducing the excess nuclear arsenal of both countries, but Reagan was a believer in "Peace through strength". Reagan implemented the "Star Wars" program which is a US nuclear missile defense in Earth orbit.

  • 10 years ago

    I’m sure we’d all agree that deliberately betraying the country for any reason is treason. To assume Obama policy is such an act of treason assumes possessing nuclear weapons has an implied sense of insurance against enemies with no liabilities. It’s a logic that really renders the idea of treason subjective and ambiguous it all becomes a wash. In reality your idea Obama thinks this is the moment of sweeping world peace is more about you then actual policy.

    There is no implied guarantee possessing nuclear weapons deters rouge nations or factions from attacking the United States. There is a very real reality nuclear weapons unaccounted for can and will be used for those purposes. I sincerely hope the Bush regime lied about that “mushroom cloud, imminent threat” Iraq represented, if not there are nuclear weapons unaccounted for in a region volatile and willing to use them. If as some have suggested attempting to defend the Bush administration these stockpiles of weapons were in the dark of night ushered off to Syria.

    As it stands right now we have enough nuclear weaponry to ruin the earth several times over. We have to hope against hope those weapons are accounted for in countries the Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus. These three countries acquired nuclear warheads when Russia fell.

    The implied threat of nuclear warheads rests implicitly on the idea we’ll use those warheads. They are extremely dangerous and the impact isn’t limited to the target, their impact is toxic. In the era of Regan a lot of hype was created around the idea of using this weapon but there was never a pulling of the trigger. In the Regan era we bankrupted Russia in the race for these weapons and it was more a fiscal reality then any actual threat these weapons posed.

    It’s a narrow minded myth to suggest that possessing nuclear weapons creates an implied safety. Those willing to use such weapons have no vested national interest and nuclear warheads left unaccounted for represent a perfect opportunity. The fewer of them available the harder it becomes for them to purchase such weapons.

    I consider it a larger act of treason to create policies that incite groups with no national interest while not having a policy in place to prevent them from securing such weapons.

    At this point there are no shortage of nuclear weapons and any balance of power won’t be shifted by dismantling a few. In reality the idea security is connected to possessing nuclear weapons is a mindset shared with Iran. This summit has moved us toward Iran and ending their self justified pursuit of nuclear weaponry. They lose credit in the international community when they want to amp up again the technology tried and vetted during the Cold War.

    The reality if you destroy the earth once it’s hardly necessary to have the nuclear warheads to repeat that feat again. I think it could be argued Bush policy did more damage then good to our nations security by spending billions in the Middle East. There’s a ratio of benefit to those who sell oil and those who commit these acts of terror, we increased their profit margin. I wonder what that money could have done spent here securing our borders, securing our nuclear plants and securing or airports. The security of threat these weapons supposedly represent is overplayed while real we wait to address the real solutions domestically.

  • Daniel
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    Every U.S. President has negotiated with a foreign power and Russia is our friend. At least now that Bush is gone with his stupid missile defense system, One person from the right wing fringe group got 10 years for weakening our defenses by making threats against our good President.

    Reagan could do all the negotiating he wanted, but now Obama cant.

    Seems like a black and white case to me. Agree

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 10 years ago

    Treason would be a difficult charge to prove in a court of law, however impeachment for crimes and misdemeanors is very possible, as he has committed several criminal offenses in my opinion, such as his white house snitch list, smoking in a federal building, bribes offered congressmen during the health care debacle

    Source(s): May God Bless you and keep us all safe from the progressive axis of evil,0bama,Pel0si&Reid
  • meg
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    Obama did not agree to disarm only to reduce the size of out nuclear arsenal. We will still have the ability to to turn any country into a sheet of glass, so I do not understand why you think it makes us vulnerable.

  • JohnS
    Lv 5
    10 years ago

    Why are people complaining about Reagan's proposal to get rid of 1/3 of our nukes? Move on guys, it's 2010.

  • 10 years ago

    Former. Look that word up and you may get a clue as to the fatal flaw in your question.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Russia is really not our enemy anymore remember Reagan

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    That's not treason. Treason means a blatant opposition against one's country.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.