Cut Down On Nukes To Shave the Deficit 369
Hugh Pickens writes "Joe Cirincione writes in the Atlantic that the US government is set to spend almost $700 billion on nuclear weapons over the next 10 years, roughly as much as it spent on the war in Iraq over the last decade. Most of the money will be spent without any clear guidance on how many weapons we need and for what purpose. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we will need some to deter nuclear threats from others, but do we really need to duplicate the entire nuclear triad for another 50 years? 'The Pentagon budget includes funds to develop a new fleet of 12 nuclear-armed submarines with an estimated cost of $110 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Also planned is $55 billion for 100 new bombers, and a new missile to replace the recently upgraded 450 Minutemen III intercontinental ballistic missiles. ... The consensus among military officials and bipartisan security experts is that nuclear reductions enhance US national security,' writes Cirincione. As the Nuclear Posture Review says, 'Our most pressing security challenge at present is preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, for which a nuclear force of thousands of weapons has little relevance.'"
Can they be recycled? (Score:2)
NASA could use some new RTGs
Medical isotopes are in need as well. Maybe they can come with a small power plant or some process that uses the nuclear material
multi-purpose submarines (Score:2)
If the US Government is going to build 12 submarines anyways, I think they should be multi-purpose.
A powerplant that can quickly go anywhere in the world could be really useful. I imagined using the navy's nuclear reactors to power bubblers to help the bacteria break down oil in the Gulf of Mexico. The catchy title was To Save the Gulf, Send the Enterprise [sendtheenterprise.org].
Now the Enterprise isn't outfitted with bubblers, or much else besides the equipment needed for its usual duties of launching airplanes to dogfight with
Someone has an axe to grind (Score:2)
Because those next-generation bombers and submarines can't possibly be used for anything other than nuclear warheads.
Re: (Score:2)
Because those next-generation bombers and submarines can't possibly be used for anything other than nuclear warheads.
Well, design them for the mission they are needed for.
Re: (Score:2)
Boomers are boomers. You could use them as a very expensive way to launch cruise missles, but that is about it. The Bombers are useful for traditional ordinance though.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
well the sub force exists largely just to hunt enemy subs(which have nukes) and to deploy revenge nukes. the intelligence work etc doable with them is just related to that. the subs don't exist even for putting up a naval blockade. as far as bombers.. well, you got some nice bombers already and some strike aircraft capable of carrying quite a bit of bombs, the force is big enough even for traditional carpet bombing. but of course with the subs the question is what's wrong with the old subs? that's a nationa
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't this kind of obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as nuclear weapons exist, we will need some to deter nuclear threats from others, but do we really need to duplicate the entire nuclear triad for another 50 years?
That's why continued reductions treaties with Russia are important. Neither country is going to do this themselves. It's not as if both countries aren't actively reducing their arsenals.
Regarding the expenditures on bombers and subs... The thing about those is you need to always be building one or the industry dies. You can build it very, very slowly, but you need to be making one at some minimum rate or you'll lose the huge investment you put into learning to build them in the first place. Aircraft carriers are similar. The problem is that when you do this, your development costs don't get spread out so the cost looks enormous - but you have to spend that money or get out of the sub/airplane/ship business altogether.
There's an argument for that, but I don't think we're ready to give up our military power just yet.
Cheaper by the dozen. (Score:4, Informative)
Well, for subs you want to build at least 3. That way you can always have 1 out to sea. Anything less and you will have times when all of your subs are in dock. Just look at the aguish the British are having with their subs. And that assumes the only thing the sub is being a nuclear deterrent and that no backup is needed.
If you are planning to do anything else with your sub [Recon, special unit warfare, launching cruise missiles close the enemy cost, etc.] you had better hope that you are operating in a single theater a time.
Planes are kind of the same thing. If they have a single task [such as a B1-B] you can get away with fewer. If they can do multiple things then you are going to want more.
Lastly, if you build 12 subs, the 12th sub is going to be about ½ the cost of the first. The first subs are going to be more expensive until the workers figure out the best way to put things together better. And I am not talking about spreading R&D costs over multiple units [which is also true]. We are talking about assembling a highly complex machine. Planes tend to be the same.
That's dumb. (Score:2, Interesting)
Irony (Score:2)
That's just dumb.
Re: (Score:3)
The Cold War wasn't about nukes. The Cold War was KEPT COLD by nukes. That is the one and only thing that stopped tanks from rolling on both sides. Russia wouldn't have cared one whit about our defensive nuclear arsenal if we didn't have thousands upon thousands of tanks on their borders. Sort of like how nobody really cares how many nukes the French have. You quite clearly know their purpose--they are there to keep foreign inva
Re: (Score:3)
Look at the geography of the U.S., other than an air invasion a force would have to land at the coasts, Canada, or Mexico, two of those would be acceptable losses and for the third there's a secret strategic reserve of hockey players.
Decommission costs? (Score:2)
Left Out Reliability (Score:5, Informative)
Also we get some benefit from that (Score:4, Insightful)
So as you note, testing is done with computers these days. The DoE has bigass supercomputers and keeps building new ones, a major reason is to accurately simulate (down to the atomic level) our nuclear weapons. Ok, well turns out those badass supercomputers are good at other kinds of simulations too, and get used for them. They aren't worthless, military only, things.
All I'm saying is consider all angles. Part of that "savings" would be cutting the US's highest end supercomptuer program. Now of course you wouldn't have to cut it, you could keep that and use them just for other kinds of research, but then your savings are less because you still spend the billions on them.
Always you need to look at the full impact of this. It is easy to look at something and say "If we cut it we save that much!" However consider what all you are cutting. You may find there is stuff in there you'd want to keep, and then your savings aren't quite what you claimed.
The Cut Downs have already happend. (Score:5, Informative)
WTF do people think all the START things are? It stands for STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The US and Russia have been cutting back their arsenals for more than twenty years. The reason there is huge upcoming expenditures being budgeted for is because the US nuclear arsenal is pretty much late 1980's vintage. Nuclear warheads don't stay viable forever, and planes and submarines wear out. Most of the expenditure is going to be on the planes and submarines, not Nuclear warheads, and those planes and submarines have non-nuclear warfare use
The B-52 was designed as a nuclear bomber, but has probably dropped more conventional ordnance then all other aircraft combined ever. Most SSBNs around the world have been adapted to be capable of firing either non-nuclear IMRBM or non-nuclear cruise missiles. They aren't just sitting under the ice with a cargo of nukes waiting for the Russkis to push the button.
The expensive thing isn't nuclear weapons, it is launch platforms and manpower. If you start cutting those heavily you may as well cut the carrier fleets and a few army divisions as well and accept not having the ability to fight three different wars at once.
Re: (Score:2)
But most of what they've "cut" was just decommissioning obsolete designs, while creating newer, more accurate, and more powerful weapons.
Hey! (Score:3)
The distraction is working.
Re: (Score:2)
We can also increase revenue. We have the lowest taxes on the richest folks we have ever had, perhaps it is time they pitch in just a little.
Re: (Score:3)
The top 5% have more than 50% of the wealth. The top 1% own the vast majority of that. The bottom 80% own 15% of the wealth. That should give you some idea who has the money.
We basically have a system that gives money to the bottom 50% and lets the top few percent pay very little tax. The middle gets stuck paying all the actual taxes.
Re:Hey! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah but the top 10% make about 95% of the income so should be paying 95% (at least) of the taxes.
Re: (Score:3)
Really I would like to hear why. They seem quite good. They would encourage spending, they would prevent the accumulation of wealth in small sectors of the society, they could be very useful in preventing political dynasties.
Switzerland has one, and they are a well functioning country.
Re: (Score:3)
Come on, this is Slashdot, how about a little math and reasoning? All you need is a tax rate that is a continuous, monotonically increasing function with revenue. It can be 0% at some level and then strictly positive at some other end. It needs to be continuous so that there isn't any threshold effect like you describe, but a flat tax rate for everyone is not the only solution.
Now the state requires X revenue. We have x taxpayers, We can't all pay the same *amount*. If we all pay the same *rate*, do the mat
Re:Hey! (Score:5, Informative)
The stimulus didn't fail. The economy was in free fall, whereas now it's just stagnant. Had we done another round of stimulus the odds are pretty good that we'd be going in the right direction. But, it's pretty dishonest to say that it didn't work when rather than free fall we're moving in the right direction, albeit slowly.
At any rate, cutting taxes for the wealthy hasn't exactly been working out so well. And we've got more than enough capital right now in the markets. What we don't have is consumer spending because all that money is going to the wealthiest.
Re: (Score:3)
At any rate, cutting taxes for the wealthy hasn't exactly been working out so well. And we've got more than enough capital right now in the markets. What we don't have is consumer spending because all that money is going to the wealthiest.
Right. We don't have spending because those wealthy people are lighting their cigars with $100 bills.
I recall my history teacher talking about how "trickle down economics" was such a failure. He told the class about how these wealthy people took the money they saved in taxes and, instead of using it to invest in businesses, used it for cars, boats, vacations, etc. All of this money was WASTED on their own entertainment instead of providing jobs for the poor.
That made sense to my immature mind at the time
Re: (Score:3)
Social Security is very nearly solvent, it has sufficient dedicated revenues to operate at full budget in the near term, and only needs minor adjustment to continue doing so in the foreseeable future. It's a whipping boy, primarily, because there are specific interests that just don't like it. In terms of the deficit, it's basically a non-factor. Of course, those who dislike it will continue to say otherwise, but if you look into their numbers you'll find that their numbers tend to have the flaw of either n
well (Score:2)
Resources are diminishing, and some nuclear powers have an rapidly expanding population of young men.
So, that is something to keep in mind when discussing military issues.
Re: (Score:2)
How much of that is nuke-dedicated? (Score:2)
Subs - Even boomers have quite a few uses other than flinging nukes.
Aircraft - Same thing. The B-2 has been successfully used in many conflicts, none of which were its original design purpose (penetrating Soviet airspace with a nuclear payload)
Missiles - OK, hard to justify that one unless the article is missing something (like the missile being derived from an orbital launch vehicle, or developed with orbital launch as a secondary capability)
We've got more than enough bombs, but as delivery systems age, t
Re: (Score:2)
Subs - Even boomers have quite a few uses other than flinging nukes.
I should hope so, they've been around for decades, cost billions and have never actually fired a missile in anger.
Easiest way to save money (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Easiest way to save money (Score:5, Informative)
Nice logic, but the military is only the 3rd largest piece of the US budget.
The biggest part of the US budget is health care subsidies currently at $793 billion a year.
The second largest part of the budget is social security currently at $701 billion a year.
The military budget is currently at $689 billion a year.
If we cut the $700 billion, 10 year nuclear program (which I think is a good idea), we would save ~$70 billion a year. Our deficit is on the order of $1 trillion a year. If we cut the entire military budget, we would still be running a yearly deficit. So yeah, we should start with the biggest pieces and start whittling down.
This is not an argument for military spending. I agree that it's too high, we don't need 11 carriers for example, but we have to be honest with ourselves about the cost social programs.
Re:Easiest way to save money (Score:5, Interesting)
You need to take a serious look at the value you're getting for your money. The US spends as much per capita on social programs as many countries that already have universal health care. Maybe capitalism isn't quite the mecca of efficiency it's supposed to be.
Re:Easiest way to save money (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest part of the US budget is health care subsidies currently at $793 billion a year.
That isn't even the whole of it. There are also the costs that individuals (or their employers) incur to acquire medical insurance. The overall price payed by americans for health coverage is staggering. I'm not sure where the money goes - insurance companies, drug companies, medical suppliers - but someone is getting their pockets filled.
By comparison, Canada spends about 1/2* as much per capita on health care services while offering universal coverage. There are still problems with the Canadian system but at least people are not dying due to lack of coverage/services. *Note that with the fall of the American dollar, this amount will have increased.
So the biggest economy in the world is the only advanced economy that doesn't offer universal health care. But what is really sad is what I hear in the American media - the fear-mongering from the Republican party is unbelievable. Those filled pockets must have some serious political connections to be able to spin such BS. Sad to think of all the people who buy into it - it's like shooting yourself in the foot.
Ha, a visiting elderly American once said that she pitied me for being subjected to a socialist health care system. Really? You pity me? Wow, ignorance truly is bliss.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//PolicyBasic_WhereOurTaxDollarsGo-f1_rev4-15-11.jpg
Just be aware that Social Security and Medicare Part A are funded exclusively by the dollars taxed for that purpose. Cutting those programs benefits while not cutting what we pay into it might make life cheaper for us on paper (as a nation, not personally), but it does nothing for the balance between debt and income nationally. Squeez
Most of it not spent on nukes (Score:5, Interesting)
There are a lot of pockets to line before any of that money actually turns into rocket fuel.
Sell them? (Score:3)
Why don't they sell a few of them? I'm sure they could find a buyer in Iran or North Korea, and I bet they'd pay a lot.
"as long as nuclear weapons exist"???? (Score:3)
So, like... they mean, forever then?
Because let's face it... there's not a chance on this earth that every nuclear power going would just up and dismantle 100% of their nuclear arsenal. It wouldn't matter what we were facing... no disaster, no common threat... nothing.
I mean, I suppose if some disaster comes along and we end up getting obliterated entirely (not merely facing inevitable extinction, but actually ending up that way), there's a good chance that the threat of nuclear terrorism could be eliminated along with our species...
Until then... however... it ain't gonna happen. Of this, I am certain.
Eisenhower (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Eisenhower (Score:5, Insightful)
Those are nice quotes. But can you defend Eisenhower presiding over the CIA when they overthrew democratic governments in Guatemala and Iran? Can you imagine what the Middle East would be like now if Iran had a democracy for the last 58 years? The people of Guatemala suffered a lot until the current period of democracy. Iran still hasn't recovered (they can only vote for candidates approved by unelected Mullahs, better than Saudi Arabia, but not democracy).
I can't see the case for nuclear weapons anymore, so the less the better for me, and I don't want to spend a dime making new ones. If they want to spend some money shuffling things around and reprocessing so the 1,000 we keep are reliable, that's better than reports I've heard about what we're doing.
I'm not convinced we ever needed them, but I can see the argument that MAD prevented direct conflict between the US and the USSR. But now, we'd be better off spending the money on making our country more economically competitive to start paying off some debt, or just use it to pay off debt.
Military Industrial complex - KNOCK IT OFF... (Score:3)
Former presidents have warned us of such abuses of the Military Industrial Complex.
Today the M.I.C has been painting itself into a smaller and smaller corner of which they cannot get out of without getting the wet paint of their lies all over themselves... and here is why...
Population growth has a way of pressuring social change. It happened in what is described in metaphorical terms as the tower of babel, which is more and event happening around the world, each growing society in its own time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel [wikipedia.org] -n Julian Jaynes explains it as the break down of the bicameral mind to that of more than just awareness but consciousness. The use of higher level abstractions, introspection, the first recorded suicides, and the wrongful use of abstraction was discovered a tool of deception.
The next event of social change was of moving from a limited mathematical symbol set of the roman numerals to the easier to use and more powerful Hindu Arabic decimal system with its zero place holder. the idea of nothing (the abstraction of zero) can have value was hard to comprehend.
Today we are at another threshold of change due to population growth and communication technology.
Of the near 7 billion people on this planet its becoming realized that its some fraction of 1% messing things up for the rest of us. Its becoming clear there are those who are psychologically unfit to command anyone. Verifiable psychopaths who pursue the increase in the military industrial complex with such tactics as invading a country base on a unverified claim and media hype and in the process killing over 100,000 civilians. Thsi done in teh name of protecting the freedoms of Americans while the same excuse is then being used by these psychopaths to strip teh very freedoms they claim to protect, away from Americans.
Now if another country came to the US and killed 100,000 American civilians, would we hate them? Of course!!
And this is how the psychopaths, like drug addicts, try to verify and validate their disease. Making enemies, not friends.
But today the mass majority of the population knows, all but these few, share in doing the same daily things called living...
Efforts like Wikileaks only helps to expose the dillusions of power these few have and how sick they really are.
Money is an abstraction. We do not need it to be productive, we only need man power, knowledge and natural resources, of which we have plenty.
Knowledge begets knowledge and waring knowledge begets more waring knowledge... and like wise, productive knowledge begets more of its own...
The waring mindset is going to destroy itself...
According to Joe Average Congress Critter (Score:3)
--sarcasm mode on--
Of course we need all of those things in the budget for the next X number of years. It's either that or lay off the trained force that builds the darn things and scale back the number of defense spending related jobs in my home state. And those people vote, darn it, and they by golly are not going to vote for me if I cost them their jobs by doing the RIGHT THING!!
* Rubber Stamp *
---sarcasm mode off---
Any questions about why we need these weapons now?
Nuclear weapons are ironic (Score:3)
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html [pdfernhout.net]
"Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land? "
Maybe ironic humor is our last, best hope against the war machines?
how about... (Score:3)
How about we just say no....that way we save 700 billion dollars over 10 years, and force not only the recycling of our weapons, but also maybe come back from our economic crisis and recover a bit of dignity as a nation being strict on development of nuclear arms...practice what we preach, right?
Obama, if your listening, get a clue, tell them hell no!!!
Wat? (Score:5, Insightful)
We need a thousand nukes just in case we want to nuke NK and Iran a thousand times?
Wouldn't a hundred times each be enough?
Re: (Score:2)
Tag: pork
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, the main reason why we haven't had a WWIII break out is that there are to MAD capable nuclear inventories in the world. One in the US and the other with Russia. If you think you need 10 nukes, then you really need at least 30 nukes as you have to have a few extras so that you can deploy them in various places and you need to have a few spares for times when you need to test or service them.
Going much below 2k for the US and 2k for Russia is a really bad idea as it greatly limits the ways in which they c
Re: (Score:3)
No, the main reason why we haven't had a WWIII break out is that there are to MAD capable nuclear inventories in the world.
MAD works well against an enemy who is sane. The problem is if the Muslim terrorists get their hands on nukes (a possibility in Pakistan) then they see it as win-win; destroy the enemy and the whole country gets to go to heaven when they retaliate.
Re:Wat? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know, but I suspect the idea that the US will, for the foreseeable future, be able to retaliate with nuclear weapons at a level that leaves the future of an aggressor's entire civilization as an open question is very valuable.
Think of it this way -- if Iran develops a viable nuclear weapon, they might decide that they could unilaterally close the Straights of Hormuz to all shipping using conventional means, with the understanding that a conventional defense risked a short-range regional nuclear retaliation (ie, to prevent the Saudis from playing with the conventional weapons the US has provided to them).
What's to stop the Iranians in this situation? The only thing to stop them is the knowledge that if they actually used a nuclear weapon -- or maybe even seriously threatened to use one -- against an American backed target that they were at risk of an overwhelming nuclear retaliation from the US.
One that would be impossible to stop (ie, ICBMs, sub-launched missiles) and would be at a level of devastation that might reduce Iran to the same category of civilization as Carthage. Assured destruction means that - your cities in ruins, your population reduced to a small fraction and your land unused.
It sounds crazy, but I believe that this keeps a lid on a lot of trouble.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pakistan, that's the real threat to global peace.
I bet my watch and warrant that the same applies to the USA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pakistan, that's the real threat to global peace.
I bet my watch and warrant that the same applies to the USA.
Instead of burying the guy with troll tags, why don't you actually try discussing why you think he is wrong, because a lot of people in the world think this is true. Or is US patriotism beyond scrutiny here on /. ?
Re: (Score:3)
THeres nothing to discuss, he made no claims other than a broad and vague "I think the US is a bad guy" type of claim.
Perhaps instead of a witty one-liner he could have made some discussable assertions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps instead of a witty one-liner he could have made some discussable assertions.
Some things are so evident that need no further explanation. You seem to require them, so here it goes.
Vietnam and Irak were attacked by the US. Some people think this is the US being the "world police". These people tend to be US citizens, obviously. A lot of other people (myself included, and I'm not an US citizen) think that the US has no business being the world police. Thus, I conclude the US is a danger to world peace, because whichever country pisses them off, get's whacked. USA has been at war almos
Re:Wat? (Score:4, Informative)
"No two countries with a mcDonalds have ever gone to war."
Nice idea, but false:
Georgia [hotels.ltd.ge] and Russia [mcdonalds.ru]
Israel [mcdonalds.co.il] and Lebanon [mcdonalds.com.lb] (check out the "McArabia" sandwich!)
NATO vs. Serbia [flickr.com]
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, the premise of TFA is correct - we don't need to spend ALL the money we're currently spending on nuclear weapons, but the hard question is what is a reasonable level and spread.
Slow and steady (Score:4, Insightful)
It's China - which isn't a problem militarily now but certainly could be
I think you'll find that China has discovered a much easier and more profitable way to conquer the USA. A strategy they've been using successfully against America for 20+ years. They're simply buying the country.
Why bother risk getting nuked when you can simply accumulate debt from your adversary. At some point in the future the amount of american IOUs that China holds will exceed the GDP. After all, America bought Alaska off the Russians, so why shouldn't the chinese simply cash in their markers, for (say) everything west of the Rockies. Some might even be glad to see that bit go.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
China will not limit themselves to economic weapons.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Citation needed. I'm honestly puzzled by how anyone with enough literacy to read this website can know so little about China.
Perhaps because a lot of whats said on this website about China smacks of propaganda and not fact, thus asking for citation is not unreasonable. For example this citation indicates that China has throughout its history had three times lower incidence of war than the west. http://www.visualstatistics.net/readings/chinese%20wars/chinese%20wars.html [visualstatistics.net]
Considering the implications that nukes are needed because china is in someway interested in nuclear war requires evidence. At least the person posting links b
Myth that China can cash in IOUs (Score:5, Insightful)
... so why shouldn't the chinese simply cash in their markers ...
Because they need to buy US bonds in order to drive the relative value of their currency down in order to maintain their export based economy.
It is inaccurate to think that China's current advantage is merely low cost labor. For simplistic goods, say beaded necklaces for Mardi Gras, that are priced as commodities low labor costs do help. However for the more technical and advanced goods, say an iPhone, labor represents a smaller component of the overall costs. I think GE recently announced expanding production of jet engines in the US, IIRC labor was only 15-20% of the cost of the engine so outsourcing for low labor wasn't helpful. What gives China an advantage in higher end goods is not labor costs, rather it is a currency that is artificially devalued. So what can they do with all those US dollars exporters are collecting? The exporters can't return those dollars to the various world markets, that would move the Chinese currency in the "wrong" direction. So the government buys the dollars from the exporters. What is the government to do with the dollars, like the exporters they can not return them to a world market. However they can buy US treasury notes, that will not cause their currency to rise in relative value. So as long as China has an export based economy driven by an artificially low currency they can not get rid of those notes.
Re: (Score:3)
Uh huh. All very convoluted. At some point China is going to ask themselves why they keep accepting US IOUs that the US can never pay off in exchange for actual goods. At the same time, China's own population, which is four times as big as the US, is going to be demanding more and more goods.
Export based economy? It is now. It won't be in the future. Plus if your dollar keeps going down China is going to have to give up suppressing their own currency anyway. Just like Canada has. I remember ten year
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
The amount of nukes around today is just insane. There is no real need for the amount that exists. Keep the nuclear submarines and then have a few land based nukes on ICBM:s and you will have enough.
The only reason why there are so many is because there is a fear that none of them will reach the target before being shot down. However that risk is relatively small.
What you really shall worry about is if a nuke is smuggled into a major port in a container and go off on the ship. That would take out the port for a considerable time.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the fear is someone will preempt you and knock out your arsenal before you can do anything about it. I understand a lot of you kids didn't live through the cold war. I get it. Please don't think you understand nuclear strategy based on the "War on Terror."
China and Russia have significant operational arsenals. A whole lot of nations are jealous of those arsenals and very much want to join the club. Our current force level is sufficient to deal with a counter-force strike, which makes MAD sensible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least Russia had the good sense to stop building new nukes when there was no money left. The USA just keeps on borrowing more.
That said, the premise of TFA is correct - we don't need to spend ALL the money we're currently spending on nuclear weapons, but the hard question is what is a reasonable level and spread.
In the next ten years? Zero would be a good amount. Economic collapse is a much bigger threat than Korea/China.
Re: (Score:2)
In the next ten years? Zero would be a good amount. Economic collapse is a much bigger threat than Korea/China.
Zero doesn't really work - these are complicated gizmos that don't just sit there. I rather doubt we need the new class of subs and we certainly don't need a new class of bombers. Whether or not we need to replace the Minutemen is more up in the air, IMHO - you just don't keep solid fuel boosters sitting there forever.
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the US and Great Britain are both designing new ballistic submarines, with the US's existing fleet being a 35yr old design and the newest 15yrs old. The French started building their new Triomphant class in the late 90's, with their latest entering service just last year. The Russians recently restarted their Borei class with two ships launched, and a third due out next year. The remaining five are postponed, not due to funding cuts, but because they want to redesign it significantly into a new class.
The US is not alone. Everyone, including Russia, is spending money on new nuclear hardware.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)
Area of china: 9,596,960 sq km. Area of japan 377,835. To do comparable damage to the same amount of area, as 2 nukes to japan, would be 50 nukes to china (ignoring of course the potential advance in technology potency etc of the nukes themselves). Admitted I would say 1,000 nukes should be enough, we have over 5k and are still working on making more which seems a bit obsessive, we should instead be spending money on say a technology to nueturalize nukes. Imagine the technical advantage of something the equivelent of an EMP field, but rather then eliminating electronics, it renders nukes coming at us inert. May be above our technology range now, but if we took 300 bil out of our nuke production, we could probably do it.
Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)
A) You don't need to nuke the whole country. Think if Washington, New York, Houston and LA were hit with 1 nuke each. We would collapse. Same thing with any other country. You hit population, finance, political and military centers, you will fold a country.
B) Nukes today are much more powerful than what we used in Japan. Maybe not as powerful as some tested in the 50's and 60's, but far more powerful than the relatively small ones used on Japan.
Honestly, 500 nukes should be more than enough for any situation. Heck, even 100 is enough. The problem is keeping those hundred nukes safe, spread out, and operational, which is most of the cost whether you have 500 or 5000 nukes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>unless "suicide by cop" was what they were after.
That's what I'm afraid of, personally. The country is so poor, and so desperate, that I wouldn't put it past them to open up aggressions again on a full scale just because they were completely out of other options to keep their population in check.
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
The bombings of Tokyo damaged more and killed more than both nukes combined.
The two nuclear bombs ended the war, not because we vaporized two cities, but because they had no idea how many more we had.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
The warheads are cheap. The expensive parts of them are made that is the fission material. The other part that has to be replaced is the Tritium and that has to be replaced as it decays.
It is the delivery systems. The Ohio class subs are getting old as are the Trident missiles. The D5 is at least 20 years old and the Subs that carry them are getting close to 30 years old. It costs a good percentage of the cost of a new sub to refuel and update an old one. Also you have to keep making new subs so you can make new subs. You have to keep the knowledge alive because it would take a long to recreate it if you need it.
It isn't the number of warheads that is the cost driver but the cost of the delivery systems. The Minuteman III is at least 40 years old. It was supposed to be replaced by MX but that was retired early because of START. It was too big to keep. Bombers do tend to be good investments for the US. The B-52 sure was. The B-1 and B-2 are also being used today. Even if you cut the warheads in half you would still have about the same costs to build the workable deterrent. You can argue that we don't need any or not but with Russia building new Missiles, subs, and possible bombers and China building new Subs and missiles I can not honestly say that we are ready to beat our swords into plowshares.
You Need to Think About the Two Outcomes ... (Score:3)
We've got enough to radiate entire countries, why
Nice Attempt at Deflection (Score:3, Insightful)
Reagan won out the cold war without firing a shot.
And he also ensured that our future would forever be saddled with debt [wikipedia.org]. Which makes me laugh when I read the end of your original post:
Stop Iraq, Libya and Afghan wars. There is your savings and cost reductions. Keep our military strong here at home to DEFEND us.
Spend more on your military industrial complex than you take in on taxes. THERE is your ensured debt and eventual country-wide bankruptcy. Raise the debt ceiling? Sure why not? We've done it, how many times since Reagan [ritholtz.com]?
You're in fantasy land where communists are nice people, just misunderstood. Never mind the hundred + million they've killed since the 1920's.
You're in a fantasy land where a large part of today's world population are mass murderers just because they live in a communist society! Put that blam
Re:You Need to Think About the Two Outcomes ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reagan did jack and squat the USSR was broke and falling apart no matter what we did. Commies not only kill people, but also can't run an economy for shit. Jimmy Carter lost for lots of reasons, some his fault some not, adults know that.
We have enough nukes, no one is saying give them up. Just that we don't need to spend this much on them.
Re: (Score:3)
It is true that Reagan's only achievment was getting credit for "winning the cold war", but the economy was not the only large problem, the ethnic diversity was also an important factor in it. It was too huge to handle without resorting to force, and Gorbachev was not quite willing to do that.
Re:You Need to Think About the Two Outcomes ... (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit. Some of us lived through the period. We were never "at the Soviets mercy." You are entitled to your own opinion about the man, but buddy you are not entitled to your own facts, particularly ones that can only be found on films from your last colonoscopy / ear exam. Must be nice to see one specialist for both, however.
Re:You Need to Think About the Two Outcomes ... (Score:4, Informative)
This is a relatively looney tune response but I'll bite. No one is saying that Communists are nice people. I mean, Hitler was a very religious guy who thought that Jews killed Christ and therefore he had to kill themâ"but I'm not going to say that all religious people are Hitlers. Hell, the Iranians are very religious people, but that clearly doesn't mean that they're our friends, not by a long shot! The Cold War was won by spending Russia to death. Reagan worked up a gigantic national debt in doing so. Does it seem like a good time right now to pursue that policy?
The argument is that we have many nuclear warheads that we are spending hundreds of billions on. The proposal is that the money spend on keeping these weapons on the ready can be better spent elsewhere. Consider: what are the consequences to our national security if we cut that down to 2,500 nuclear warheads? That's enough to irradiate Russia or China a couple of times overâ"certainly enough to dissuade them from launching a nuclear attack. Does reducing the number of warheads reduce the survivability of our force? Depends, but if we keep the bulk of them deployed on ballistic submarines, they'll likely never be tracked or shot at by any other country in the world.
Does the idea of a nuclear-bomb-equipped bomber or cruise missile seem archaic to you in an age of super-reliable ICBMs based in the sea and on land? The US Air Force accidentally flew nuclear bombs across the US without knowing that the bombs were live. Think about that. How much value is the "bomber" part of the nuclear triad adding? We can lower the number of nuclear bombers and base them around the world for backup, but what makes you think that we must have nuclear weapons at current levels of maintain our national safety?
But hey, let's ignore this, and go all hysterical about even considering lowering the level of nuclear weapons. Because Jimmy Carter is an asshole and Reagan is God. Or maybe because you're delusional.
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly, this fact is being revised away. Twenty years ago, everybody except a few desperate partisans knew this was true; today, the meme is being spread that the fall of the USSR was inevitable, and that Reagan's policies had nothing to do with it. It's an appealing meme to some people, so they accept it and spread it.
Many younger people are absolutely clueless about the cold war.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Woa, woa, woa, relax guy! The US still has enough nukes to turn the whole of Iran into glass and after that they would still have enough left over to turn Argentina into a huge sinkhole; and this is without spending an extra 700 billion.
As for defense of the homeland, a few well placed bunker busters would be quite enough to calm down any saber-rattling nation. Plus, the simple fact of staying home and not meddling would also reduce animosity towards the nation.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that the wars
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Woa, woa, woa, relax guy! The US still has enough nukes to turn the whole of Iran into glass and after that they would still have enough left over to turn Argentina into a huge sinkhole; and this is without spending an extra 700 billion.
As for defense of the homeland, a few well placed bunker busters would be quite enough to calm down any saber-rattling nation. Plus, the simple fact of staying home and not meddling would also reduce animosity towards the nation.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that the wars in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan are where the US should cut costs though.
You know Chavez is from Venezuela, right? Not sure where the attitude against Argentina came from, but they are some ok dudes... Is your map of South America maybe upside down?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, he's Brasilian and is just looking to vent after their implosion at the 2010 World Cup. That, and after watching the walking ego that is Maradona, I'd vote for nuking them just so he doesn't get any more airtime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
you got nukes. the nukes can't be used against chavez. the nukes are not meaningful against nk's supposed, future, nuclear forces, but tomahawks are. anyways, if usa cut back a little on their corporate benefits for select few companies you could have your nukes and cake too. just giving a check for someone to build "nuke stuff" with no idea of it's use is not the answer. and ICBM's.. well. you can't get any more ICBM than what you are already have done, that's why the nuke race stalled - nothing more to race for after having pictures of nukes that deploy multiple warheads nicely and impossibly to defend. so you're giving xxx billions of money to companies which will build a cheaper version and take more money for doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
"The consensus among military officials and bipartisan security experts is that nuclear reductions enhance US national security" citation needed for that.
I can't imagine cutting back while NK and Iran are arming up. Even Hugo Chavez is talking about going nuclear now. How does leaving us at the mercy of our enemies enhance our security? I'd like as much as the next person for nukes to go away entirely, but this Jimmy Carter attitude that the rest of the world is a cute cuddly place is horribly misguided.
Stop Iraq, Libya and Afghan wars. There is your savings and cost reductions. Keep our military strong here at home to DEFEND us.
Yeah, peace through strength! Amiright? Actually, if you RTFA you would see that the argument goes something like this: If all the big players agree to a NPT, they can all agree to take a strong stance *together* against other countries that don't agree with the NPT. What good is having 3000 nukes instead of 2000 nukes when all your enemy needs is just one to inflict serious damage on your nation? If we don't stand with the international community, we can't expect that our military is going to be able
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read TFA? (oh, yeah right-this is /.)
>>>
The consensus among military officials and bipartisan security experts is that nuclear reductions enhance U.S. national security. As the Nuclear Posture Review says, "Our most pressing security challenge at present is preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, for which a nuclear force of thousands of weapons has little relevance."
>>>
I'll let you google "Nuclear Posture Review"...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Reducing the size of the American nuclear arsenal would free up a lot of money that can be used to target more present threats. We already have enough nuclear bombs to deter North Korea and Iran even if we cut our arsenal to a tenth of its current sizeâ"the added deterrence of nuked a thousand times versus ten times is not enough to be relevant. But if we get an extra ten billion dollars a year, we can pay down our debt. We can get more UAVs to keep our soldiers out of harms' way. More armored cars to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We already do it with retired weapons from Russia, and looks like we might be running low.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/business/energy-environment/10nukes.html [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thats some pretty good thinking... (Score:3)
But what happens when you have a glut of pyramids that you built by soaking up excess labour? The nice thing about war toys is you get to blow them all up, and everybody cheers. Well, maybe not everybody.
If, instead, we used the weapons to attack the military industry itself, then we don't have to employ those people. That is a win-win.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, they did a real bang up job last time...
And the time before that...
And the time before that...
I can't imagine why anyone would think they are a terrible option. The Democrats obviously suck at everything other than waffling, shuffling their feet, and getting in their own way, so why not vote for a party that routinely blows everything up instead? It may be worse, but at least it isn't boring.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's not. IN fact, that' not even in doubt.
The details is the problem. Grover Norquist created the current meme that honoring the expiration of the Bush tax cuts = Raising taxes. His lies to the media is the problem. I think the man is a psychopath and will happily watch society burn as long as it doesn't involve 'raising taxes'.
The other problem is the idea thet the government ahs more money then it need to give peope the services it needs, and that it will 'find money' somewhere.
People are incredibly
Re: (Score:3)
Not raising this limit will mean a technical default or failure to meet our obligations as a debtor. Like not paying your credit card bill. You already spent the money, but you just refused to pay for it. This is exactly why the credit rating agencies have considered lowering our nations credit score... Failure to pay...
By trying to "fix