Take Obama. As he prepares to leave office, the fawning has begun all over again. He is “cool”. One of the more violent presidents, Obama gave full reign to the Pentagon war-making apparatus of his discredited predecessor. He prosecuted more whistleblowers – truth-tellers – than any president. He pronounced Chelsea Manning guilty before she was tried. Today, Obama runs an unprecedented worldwide campaign of terrorism and murder by drone.

In 2009, Obama promised to help “rid the world of nuclear weapons” and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.  No American president has built more nuclear warheads than Obama. He is “modernising” America’s doomsday arsenal, including a new “mini” nuclear weapon, whose size and “smart” technology, says a leading general, ensure its use is “no longer unthinkable”.

James Bradley, the best-selling author of Flags of Our Fathers and son of one of the US marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima, said, “[One] great myth we’re seeing play out is that of Obama as some kind of peaceful guy who’s trying to get rid of nuclear weapons. He’s the biggest nuclear warrior there is. He’s committed us to a ruinous course of spending a trillion dollars on more nuclear weapons. Somehow, people live in this fantasy that because he gives vague news conferences and speeches and feel-good photo-ops that somehow that’s attached to actual policy. It isn’t.”

On Obama’s watch, a second cold war is under way. The Russian president is a pantomime villain; the Chinese are not yet back to their sinister pig-tailed caricature – when all Chinese were banned from the United States – but the media warriors are working on it.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/27/silencing-america-as-it-prepares-for-war/

It is part of a nationwide wave of atomic revitalization that includes plans for a new generation of weapon carriers. A recent federal study put the collective price tag, over the next three decades, at up to a trillion dollars.

This expansion comes under a president who campaigned for “a nuclear-free world” and made disarmament a main goal of American defense policy. The original idea was that modest rebuilding of the nation’s crumbling nuclear complex would speed arms refurbishment, raising confidence in the arsenal’s reliability and paving the way for new treaties that would significantly cut the number of warheads.

Instead, because of political deals and geopolitical crises, the Obama administration is engaging in extensive atomic rebuilding while getting only modest arms reductions in return.

Supporters of arms control, as well as some of President Obama’s closest advisers, say their hopes for the president’s vision have turned to baffled disappointment as the modernization of nuclear capabilities has become an end unto itself.

Details are still absent. Are more being built on top of old supplies or are old supplies being dismantled and a smaller number of better weapons being built?

And I have to wonder why this is an issue for conservatives. They often complain Obama is weak military wise but if he is building the military up then shouldn't conservatives be happy?

I think you are not understanding conservatives correctly.

A weak military POLICY will make it MORE likely to have to engage WITH military.

Also, you can reduce the number of nukes, but if you increase their sophistication, that's like saying you have eliminated 10 crossbows with one machine gun.

Exactly. People say Obama is disarming the military, but the title of the threat suggests Obama is making it stronger.

People say Obama is disarming the military, but the title of the threat suggests Obama is making it stronger.

Anyone who was or is military knows your statement is false.

Nukes are not conventional weapons.  We won't use nukes in a regular war.  Only if someone starts launching their missiles will we use ours.

Numbers of nukes are good for deterrence.  Ever heard of MAD Doctrine?  The military needs bullets, guns, ships, planes, tanks, food, trucks, jeeps, Humvees, armor, boots, personal gear, choppers, technological systems, communications, satellites, and above all, well trained and experienced people.

As an analogy, you can have all the 50 BMG rifles you can afford as long as they are stored at home, and you can say you have more personal defense power than the criminals have.  But that won't do anything for you when you get mugged walking down the street!

If Obama was increasing military spending in areas other than nukes, I would agree we are stronger.  He's putting resources into systems we  have almost zero chance of ever using.

I am not in disagreement, I just don't see why conservatives would be making an issue that he is building nukes.

Limited resources spent on nukes instead of conventional weapons and gear.  It's an issue of opportunity cost.

Now if only the issue were originally presented like that.