It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do You Nead All These

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Hear are some statistis on america's favirite waste of money NUKES and WAR (statistics are old the values will have increased)

US Spending on Nuclear Weapons and Programs
FY 1998 (Estimated)

In Billions


Department of Defence:

Strategic Nuclear Forces____________________________________$7.5
Tactical Nuclear and Dual-Capable Forces_______________________$1
Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence_____________$6
Operation/Maintenance_____________________________________$4
Research/Development____________________________________$0.4
Defence Special Weapons Agency____________________________$0.3
Defence Environmental Restoration Account___________________$0.5
National and Theatre Missile Defence_________________________$3.8
Cooperative Threat Reduction________________________________$0.4
On-Site Inspection Agency__________________________________$0.04

Total________________________________________________$23.94


Department of Energy:

Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program______________$4.3
Defence Programs_______________________________________$0.968
Naval Nuclear Propulsion_________________________________$0.335
Environmental Restoration/Waste Management_________________$5.4

Total___________________________________________________$11


Additional Sources:

Department of Justice
(Radiation Exposure Compensation Act)______________________$0.03
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency_______________________$0.035
Defence Nuclear Facilities Safety Board_______________________$0.02
International Atomic Energy Agency (U.S. Payments)____________$0.05
Congressional Oversight__________________________________$0.05

Total__________________________________________________$0.19


Active US Nuclear Stockpile - July 1998:

Warhead (Weapon) Number in Stockpile

Bombs



B61-7__________________________________________________300
B61-11_________________________________________________50
B83____________________________________________________480

Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles



W62 (Minuteman III)_______________________________________610
W78 (Minuteman III)_______________________________________915
W87-0 (MX)______________________________________________525

Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles



W76 (Trident I C4)_________________________________________3,200
W88 (Trident II D5)________________________________________400

Air-Launched Cruise Missiles



W80-1 (ALCM)____________________________________________400
W80-1 (ACM)_____________________________________________400

Non-Strategic Forces


B61- Tactical Bomb_________________________________________750
W80-0 (SLCM)____________________________________________320
TOTAL__________________________________________________8,350


Current Military, $558B:Military Personnel $109B, Operation and Maintenance $154B, Procurement $81B, Research and Development $68B, Construction $7B, Family Housing $4B, Retired Pay $46B, DoE Nuclear Weapons $17B, NASA (50%) $8B, International Security $8B, Homeland Sec. (50%) $16B, Ex. Off. Pres. $78, Misc. $4B, “Allowance for Anticipated Supplemental” (Iraq) $25B
UNBUDGETTED: $85B (est.):Most of the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is not included in the President’s Budget but the Administration has announced it will seek this money as supplemental appropriations later in year as it has in the past two years

Past Military, $384B: Veterans’ Benefits $70B; Interest on National Debt (80% estimated to be created by military spending) $314B

Human Resources, $722B: Education, Health/Human Services, HUD, Food/Nutrition programs, Labour Department, Soc. Sec. Admin.

General Government, $261B: Legislative, Justice, State Dept., International Affairs, Treasury, Gov’t. Personnel, 20% interest on national debt, NASA (50%), Homeland Security (25%)

Physical Resources, $120B: Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Interior, Transportation, Environmental Protection, Army Corps Engineers, NSF, FCC, Homeland Security (25%)

FOR THE THIRD STRAIGHT YEAR, the Bush Administration has continued its deceptive practice of omitting the cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from the Budget. This cover-up, along with the ban on taking photos of military coffins returning to the U.S. and the refusal to provide the number of civilians killed by U.S., shows that truth is, once again, a casualty of war. While some may claim that the era of “big government” is over, it is clear that many corporations (see below) continue to profit from the volatile mix of big government and war.

Lives Lost in Afghanistan and Iraq
(as of Jan. 31, 2005)

Over 1,600 U.S.* and 280 “coalition” troops killed
Over 6,100 U.S. and 840 “coalition” troops injured
Over 38,500 Iraqi & Afghani troops killed
Over 19,000 Iraqi & Afghani civilians killed
Over 34,500 Iraqi & Afghani civilians injured
Over 580 U.S. & “coalition” civilian workers killed or seriously injured


Repeat !!statistics are old the values will have increased!!

Any comments?

[edit on 3/9/06 by hect3a]




posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by hect3a
Hear are some statistis on america's favirite waste of money NUKES and WAR (statistics are old the values will have increased)....


...Any comments?

[edit on 3/9/06 by hect3a]


First up, my real comments would not be allowed by the TOS.

Secondly, the defense budget is under 4% of the US budget, how do you figure its "america's favirite" waste of money? Care to post some back up or some stats to prove your statement? Or is it just more agenda driven anti western drivel?


[edit on 9-3-2006 by skippytjc]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
It's 30% not 4% and I am not agenst the west however I am agenst SUPPER WEPONS in my opinion nobody should have them



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Talk to the Russians, I am pretty sure they have more warheads than the US...

Both countries have reduced their arsenals significantly in the last couple of decades though.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Please try to use correct spelling and grammar for the U>K or the US.
Thats not a waste of money, who will live through a nuclear war us or a country spending 1 billion only on defense? , chew on that 'mano.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Senor_Vicente
Please try to use correct spelling and grammar for the U>K or the US.
Thats not a waste of money, who will live through a nuclear war us or a country spending 1 billion only on defense? , chew on that 'mano.


The answer is no one, because a nuclear war kills everyone! No matter how much money you spend. So now you know.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Oh and what of the nuclear winter winter scenario more or less being generally considerred laughable by the academic community? But right we should just let everyone else race ahead... But wait we already do that in genetics and nanotech and biotech...

Lets get down to brass tacks here people, too many americans are too narrow minded to allow research into the real technologies of the future like bio/nano tech in any major way. So our only recourse is to say oh yeah will your hybrid animals withstand a thermonuclear airburst?

On top of this we are almost obligated to hold a large stash of nukes to counter other power blocs... and proliferation might i add. (this statement is not in any way traditional american hubris.. it is however an indication of the very real fact that the american public would lynch literally an administration that launched for anything other than dire threat. Our weak stomached and consumatelly lip service paying to fair play public makes us one of the safest nations on the planet to posess a stockpile of nukes)



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   
The amount of money spent on American’s defense (around 4% of GDP) is solely the business of the American people. If you’re not an American citizen, we don’t care what you or any other non-citizen thinks.

America exists for the American people.


[edit on 10-3-2006 by ElTiante]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
So dose ameraca want to go MAD and I dont mean insain I mean Mutualy Asured Destructon. Any way my point is !!NO CONTERY SHOULD HAVE NUKES!! end of story.

[edit on 3/14/06 by hect3a]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by hect3a
So dose ameraca want to go MAD and I dont mean insain I mean Mutualy Asured Destructon. Any way my point is !!NO #ERY SHOULD HAVE NUKES!! end of story.


So you don’t think any country should have nukes. That’s great, good luck with that.

America’s preeminence was hard won and we’re not going to surrender it because other countries complain about it.

I don’t know were you’re from but it’s a fair bet that, but for American military power, you’d be living under a Nazi or Soviet boot.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I gess however the only bad thing about the sovets was that there leader was coupt and there political system had no fail-safes (it would be the perfect sosiety but we are not perfect that was the flaw with comunisim)

[edit on 3/14/06 by hect3a]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by hect3a
I gess however the only bad thing about the sovets was that there leader was coupt and there political system had no fail-safes (it would be the perfect sosiety but we are not perfect that was the flaw with comunisim)


Wow, you are an astounding dolt.

Stalin starved as many as TEN MILLION people in 1929-1930. The USSR was one of the most repressive and monstrous regime in human history. Between Stalin, Mao and there rest, communism is the most murderous ideology ever visited upon humanity.

An economic system that punishes success is doomed to failure.



[edit on 14-3-2006 by ElTiante]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElTiante
I don’t know were you’re from but it’s a fair bet that, but for American military power, you’d be living under a Nazi or Soviet boot.

But for the soviet army and the rest of the allies you would be living under the nazi boot yourselves...

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElTiante
If you’re not an American citizen, we don’t care what you or any other non-citizen thinks.


Couldn't have said it better myself!


America exists for the American people.


I beg to differ. Being an American myself, I believe that the United States exist as a beacon to the rest of the world.

Now to answer the thread. Yes, it is necessary to have what we have. We Americans find it very necessary to have this and more. Why? We, the United States and it's allies (you know who you are),need to keep the rest of the world (enemies of democracy and freedom) in check!



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElTiante

Originally posted by hect3a
I gess however the only bad thing about the sovets was that there leader was coupt and there political system had no fail-safes (it would be the perfect sosiety but we are not perfect that was the flaw with comunisim)


Wow, you are an astounding dolt.

Stalin starved as many as TEN MILLION people in 1929-1930. The USSR was one of the most repressive and monstrous regime in human history. Between Stalin, Mao and there rest, communism is the most murderous ideology ever visited upon humanity.

An economic system that punishes success is doomed to failure.



[edit on 14-3-2006 by ElTiante]


It didn't punish success. They just screwed it up. Any communist worth his weight in gold will tell you that. The Soviet Union was more what they cal STALINIST Communism, not MARXIST Communism. Stalin and Lenin just got greedy, and made a bad name unjustly for communists everywhere.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling

Originally posted by ElTiante
If you’re not an American citizen, we don’t care what you or any other non-citizen thinks.


Couldn't have said it better myself!


America exists for the American people.


I beg to differ. Being an American myself, I believe that the United States exist as a beacon to the rest of the world.

Now to answer the thread. Yes, it is necessary to have what we have. We Americans find it very necessary to have this and more. Why? We, the United States and it's allies (you know who you are),need to keep the rest of the world (enemies of democracy and freedom) in check!



Being an American myself, our duty is to OUR country not THEIR country. What is this duty we have to be a beacon to others. If thye want us they can ask for our help.

As for the nukes, then if we can have them anyone should be able to have them, they just have to realize if they use them they are f***ed.
The "Forces of Good" shouldn't be the only ones allowed nukes. That's just common sense. I mean that by the following: The people who control the nukes, can effectively force just about any other country to do what they want. Let anyone who has the capacity for building their own nukes build 'em and it levels out the playing field.

Sure those people could be bad and use the nukes to kill, but who's to say America is above that too? I guarantee you there is at least one person in power who wants to bomb the crap out of everyone.

Sorry if this is incoherent, I'm on like 3 days of no sleep and 12 cups of coffee.

[edit on 14/3/06 by SFRemmy]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFRemmy
Being an American myself, our duty is to OUR country not THEIR country. What is this duty we have to be a beacon to others.


What I meant by being a beacon to the world is the pursuit of liberty and freedom. Why is is that we are the most favored nation in the world? It's because we are wealthy. How did we become wealthy? It's because of our freedom to pursue directions that are prohibited by governments of other nations. We will not stand for anyone to get in our way to success and we won't sit on our behinds to see our dreams become a reality.

We did it and by our example so can the rest of the world. The world doesn't have to come to America to realize their dreams. They can learn and live by our example. That's what I meant.


[edit on 14/3/06 by Intelearthling]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by hect3a
. Any way my point is !!NO CONTERY SHOULD HAVE NUKES!! end of story.



In a Perfect world I would agree with you but Earth is so far from perfect its not even funny. Nuclear weapons are of insane destructive power but are a proven deterent. Can you name a single country that has been invaded since it developed a powerful strategic nuclear force?

I dont think everyone should have a huge pile of nukes though and agree with the NPT on that subject. But nuclear weapons are a huge factor in why the ColdWar didnt turn into WW3.

Could have had a Three-Pete of World Wars in a single century.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by SFRemmy
It didn't punish success. They just screwed it up. Any communist worth his weight in gold will tell you that. The Soviet Union was more what they cal STALINIST Communism, not MARXIST Communism. Stalin and Lenin just got greedy, and made a bad name unjustly for communists everywhere.


You you’re right, communism is great, except for all the places it’s tried. The tens of millions murdered under Stalin, Pot, Mao, Jong il and the rest were just teething pains.

Communism does punish success. Who’s going to work hard when you don’t receive a commensurate reward?

You know, I’ll bet they’ve got flights leaving for Cuba every day where you live. When can I expect a post card from Havana?



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Current DoD budget = 3.2% of the GDP (during the Cold War it was at 5%)

Having nukes was the only thing that kept the Cold War cold, and not hot.

Russia has more nukes, chemical weapons, and biological weapons than America does.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join