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.

 

Revealed: US spends more than $52 billion a year on nukes

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Revealed: US spends more than $52 billion a year on nukes


rawstory.com

The United States spends more than $52 billion a year maintaining, upgrading and operating its nuclear weapons arsenal each year, a little-heralded study revealed Monday.

Outside of the hefty price tag, equally significant is the way the money is spent. The US devoted just 1.3 percent -- or $700 million -- to preparing for the consequences of a nuclear attack.

The amount of money spent on America's nuclear programs dwarfs the amount spent on diplomacy and foreign assistance (combined), effectively leaving US diplomatic efforts abroad in the long shadow of America's ballistic missiles.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Submit General News




posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Wow, what a number!

I guess that I shouldn't be surprised that this number is so big. Its just when reading the raw numbers like this makes me wonder why we have so many of these damn things in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for being armed to the teeth. I do however question the need for maintaining some 9,600 of these things, according to the article, when surely 5,000 could do the job (many times over).

It makes me wonder if, by maintaining them, it is cheaper than getting rid of them??

Anyone know?



rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Going to try to post a pie chart here.

Having never done this, if it doesn't work you may heckle and laugh to your hearts content!!!!


carnegieendowment.org...

I guess that I don't know how but I did copy the link to said pie chart.

SeeYa!!!!



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I wonder how much of that money actually goes towards anything nuke-related. It's likely large portions of it are being siphoned into what we would call black projects.

[edit on 1/12/2009 by iceofspades]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I wonder if they are figuring Dissmantle costs and procurement costs of Nukes in that Bill as well? You know the money too buy other countries Nuke weapons for Us too safely dispose of and Guard.
Thats still not near what we gave Wall street for well Nothing.


[edit on 12-1-2009 by VType]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by wolf241e
I do however question the need for maintaining some 9,600 of these things, according to the article, when surely 5,000 could do the job (many times over).

It makes me wonder if, by maintaining them, it is cheaper than getting rid of them??

rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Once a weapon is manufactured it's purpose is to be used.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I hope they are making more nukes...i mean...why even let the cockroaches survive right?

You'd think 100 would be enough...or 50. #..all you need is one man..and even then it should never be used.

It's not wonder the country is broke.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by iceofspades
I wonder how much of that money actually goes towards anything nuke-related. It's likely large portions of it are being siphoned into what we would call black projects.

[edit on 1/12/2009 by iceofspades]



SSBN programs are expensive.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
OK I don’t get it?

The US is one of the leading Super powers and we spend 52 Billion on nukes. Ok


Where’s the conspiracy?
I’m pretty sure a lot of that goes towards training, maintenance and black budget projects etc.
I’m an American I see no big deal here.
I’m sorry but a B2 bomber averages $2.1 billion per aircraft and our nuke subs average $1.8 to $2 billion so I dont see it that shocking.




[edit on 13-1-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden
SSBN programs are expensive.


That much is clear. It's just hard for me to fathom that much money going exactly where they say it's going. You know?


reply to post by SLAYER69
 

I wouldn't necessarily call it anything out of the ordinary conspiracy-wise, but it certainly is shocking that so much money is going towards nukes. I mean the Cold War is over, right? That's what the TV says anyway


[edit on 1/13/2009 by iceofspades]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
What percentage of trillions is that?


I think the real conspiracy is where is the percentage NOT spent on NUKES?



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Over 52 Billion spent on the War in Drugs every year.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
For this price you could do the following

NOw convert every car in the USA to run on ethanol.

And have $50 Billion the next year, which would provide every american and business with FREE FUEL - NO MORE DEPRESSION!!!!!


You Could build:

400 Brand NEW High schools every year such as the Newton north High School in massachuttes one of the best in the country.

EVERY YEAR!!! or just for one year then do the free fuel?

BUT Really the Real Sick twisted and wrong thing about this besides the fact we are all slaves to pay for this plus the banking bailouts is that:

WORLD STARVATION AND MALNUTRITION WOULD BE ENDED IF SPENT ON THIS BY 2015.!!!!!!

America could end totally all the starving children in the world, no-one would ever go hungry again after 2015, when it could be spent as shown above, the jobs created by this massive work in 2/3rds of the world who are starving/malnurished would also lead to massive long term employment opportunities and growth in American business's so your friends homes would not be foreclosed.

It would then create huge wealth as those now healthy people would raise their standard of living and buy more American goods and services.

No lets build bombs that would kill the entire earth 1000 times over shall we instead?

You could instead if you Liked Provide 2 years of Primary school Education for EVERY CHILD on Earth!

I could go on......

INSANITY has been normalised, many reading this story were born to people who were born way after the first bomb was made.

It is not normal or sane, and why on earth the average American would rather buy these things than have a world without Hunger, free gas for ever, no poverty in their own country, and would rather give their time as unrecognised slaves paying money to Bankers and Mad Men who always want more is beyond me.

Is 100 of these not enough...50?

20
or even

2-3, which would obliterate beyond recognition any country on earth?

Kind Regards,

Elf

Millenium Development Goals Yeah right.... bet all the planned nukes get made though...Madness.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by MischeviousElf
 


Wow, where to start?

1. Why is "ending worl hunger and starvation" my country's responsibillity? I could just as easily start ripping on Canada for spending money to socialize health care, or on art endowments, or the UK on whatever it is the UK spends their money on. Where do you stop? Yeah, starving kids in Africa, sucks huh? Still, not my concern. Keeping MY country safe, however... very important to me.

2. The mere fact that we have an arsenal which could end all life on Earth as we know it with a simple series of button presses is what has kept this country basically safe from rogue governments. I do not lose sleep over asshats like Castro or Chavez having nukes. I don't actually worry about Ahmadinejad or Jong Ill having nukes. These are all men who wallow in affluence, greed, and hedonism. They love life, and have no desire to see their own lives ended in a firestorm. That is the advantage having the largest nuclear arsenal in the world grants the US. Every government around the entire globe knows without a doubt that the instant a mushroom cloud appears over New York City, Los Angeles, Washington DC, or any other series of major US cities, it will equal end game for everyone. I do, however, worry about religious fanatics getting ahold of nukes because they have demonstrated that one of their goals is martyrdom and destruction. But that's for another topic...

3. 2 or 3 nukes wouldn't obliterate any country, friend. Barring the use of something like the Tsar bomb or our (never proven to exist) planet killer missle that theorhetically delivers a destructive blast thousands of times stronger than Hiroshima, it would take several nukes to destroy a single large city. 2 or 3 detonated anywhere would be horrific, absolutely, but they wouldn't result in destruction of a nation.

To the OP, the article is slightly misleading. Technically speaking, the money spent of missle defense & on threat reduction could be considered part of preparing for a nuclear attack. I'm pleased to see that they are spending far more on preparing to deflect or eliminate an attack before the payload reaches our country than they are on actually dealing with the aftermath of a detonation. If those figures were reversed, I'd tend to believe that we were expecting a successfull attack rather than expecting to be able to defend ourselves from it.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


give it a few years and when the Empire of the United States fails
im pretty sure we will see Americans losing Jobs on the mass and having hard time to pay for daily nesecities, oh wait thats happening now,

The worlds largest super power and you have people living in Slums,


on topic,
along with Russia the US can destroy this planet ten fold,
when it comes to MAD, atleast they know their missiles will work



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


give it a few years and when the Empire of the United States fails
im pretty sure we will see Americans losing Jobs on the mass and having hard time to pay for daily nesecities, oh wait thats happening now,

The worlds largest super power and you have people living in Slums,


on topic,
along with Russia the US can destroy this planet ten fold,
when it comes to MAD, atleast they know their missiles will work




USA will collapse , and be bankrupted and will disintegrate like Soviet union did



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Hmmm i wonder if US did collapse like the former ussr, whether the super power of that time would invade america b/c they got a hot tip that the country has WMD's.

... just a thought.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
reply to post by MischeviousElf
 


Wow, where to start?


Disarmament?



1. Why is "ending worl hunger and starvation" my country's responsibillity?


Not a responsibility a choice actually.

Hey just feed your own malnourished or poor properly instead.



Keeping MY country safe, however... very important to me.


Safe from?

All the countries with WMD who want to attack it like Iraq?



2. The mere fact that we have an arsenal which could end all life on Earth as we know it with a simple series of button presses is what has kept this country basically safe from rogue governments.


Not from Iraq apparently or the Taliban.

9/11 was pretty spectacular was it not?

If you believe it was really some Saudi Arabians, flying jet's at limits beyond the best trained and military pilots after practising in a cessna or two... as the evidence provided in the official investigations shows, what use Nuclear Bombs?

They don't have any, and if you Nuked them your country would not have the very Oil its country men are dying for?



I do not lose sleep over asshats like Castro or Chavez having nukes.


I wouldnt either Castro has never wanted them or developed them, Russia placing them there at the time of JFK was just the same as Grenwhich Common in the UK or certain Airfields in Germany.

Trust me though the US worried the Russians and the Europeans, both where based and aimed at.

As to Chavez even being remotely possible to building a Nuke I will leave that for a more humorous discussion.



I don't actually worry about Ahmadinejad


Well I would the USA funded the country, that they have currently invaded for many years to kill hundreds of thousands of his countrymen. I dare say they are annoyed, especially as the Shah was created anyhow by the CIA, sound familiar?

Just like Afghanistan, your our friend we will put murderous regimes in place in your country if you will dye for our underhand geo political games, but as soon as the game is won we will take the winnings and accuse you of cheating.

But if he could even produce 10 over the 10 yrs if they are lucky I can assure you the USA would not be their target its somewhere much closer to home.



or Jong Ill having nukes.

The whole world should worry about this man and Nuclear weapons, that's why we should all keep a few back as stated to stop the real WMD risks.



These are all men who wallow in affluence, greed, and hedonism. They love life, and have no desire to see their own lives ended in a firestorm. That is the advantage having the largest nuclear arsenal in the world grants the US.


Oh as shock and awe showed and such like the USA does not need nuclear bombs to produce firestorms at all, everyone is very aware of the risks of even being a former ally! and making deals with its ex defence secretaries and vice presidents.

Its a bit like sticking a Vibrator/Rabbit on the end of a Trans Am, bit silly really we all know who has the biggest one in town, Mr Holmes aka the usa has been swinging it about town quit a bit over recent years




Every government around the entire globe knows without a doubt that the instant a mushroom cloud appears over New York City, Los Angeles, Washington DC, or any other series of major US cities, it will equal end game for everyone.


Well if Washington DC goes up like 9/11 they will be nuking themselves twice, I believe you guys call that Redundancy don't you?

No records of the exercises being run at the time left then though



I do, however, worry about religious fanatics getting ahold of nukes


This is my exact concern and thrust of my post The NEO CONS should disarm now, they are too dangerous with certain others on the HILL to have control of these things.



because they have demonstrated that one of their goals is martyrdom and destruction.


Well I am not sure about Martyrdom, I think playing golf, and getting paid a few million $ Year for a speech here and there is the paradise they are searching for, probably with the virgins too though.

But the destruction is evident all around us yes... I agree.

Ohhh i get it sorry you meant Martyrdom for the young soldiers dying to bolster their shares, and companies they are on the board of to spread into the conquered lands...and the martyrdom of the good countrymens, homes, taxs, housr worked 401,s and Jobs to pay their freinds to print your money, and then ask for more when they loose it...
R
ight yes I get your drift now.



But that's for another topic...


Hopefully so my friend If the Fanatasism does not kill us before we can discuss it.

Suppose it wont be another Topic for the young lad who gets shot in a gang bang drive by today because ther is no jobs or no decent schooling in the Bronx.



2 or 3 nukes wouldn't obliterate any country, friend. Barring the use of something like the Tsar bomb or our (never proven to exist) planet killer missle that theorhetically delivers a destructive blast thousands of times stronger than Hiroshima, it would take several nukes to destroy a single large city.


Mmm I think you are underestimating the true effects of an event such as this.

I live in a city of about 300,000 people, it is a world Capital City.

The bomb Dropped on Nagasaki probably killed around 144,000 people.

With 15 kilotons.

Add to today's life much more flying glass, automobiles, and densely populated high rise Office Blocks and Living Quarters.

Just think if the towers would have been full that fateful day up to 10,000 people could have been killed WITH TWO PLANES of jet fuel????

As the weapons in the arsenal now are ridiculously bigger than Hiroshima and Nagasaki I Know for a Fact the entire capital of my country would be dead, gone.


A single U.S. ballistic missile submarine, armed with 12 Trident missiles each capable of carrying up to eight separate nuclear warheads, can deliver as many as 192 nuclear weapons in short order. Independent analysts estimate that the average missile load today is 6 warheads, which means 144 warheads on a single boat. Each of these weapons will have a yield of either 100 or 475 kilotons, depending on which of the two SLBM warheads are employed. The yield of the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima was, by comparison, estimated to be at most 15 kilotons– so these modern warheads range from more than 6 to almost 32 times the size of that first city-destroying weapon.

Source

So a bomb 32 times as powerful dropping on Moscow or conversely Washington would be immense.

Take a small country like the UK 3 Large Nukes.

1 in London.
1 in Say Liverpool or Manchester
1 In Bristol or Cardiff

added to the fact they all have Nuclear Power stations in the blast area....

Trust me the UK would cease to exist for a very long time in any recognisable way.

It would be like Mad Max the chaos, loss of government, after effects, Britain would cease to exist in any meaningful way.


2 or 3 detonated anywhere would be horrific, absolutely, but they wouldn't result in destruction of a nation.


I disagree as stated above, people would survive the country would eventually get back on its feet, but the Nation State as such would be gone to.

If you look at the US model,

32 times the strength of Nagasaki

Washington

New York

LA

I cant even comprehend the ability of the US to truly survive as it is after that, esp if it was a surprise attack no warning with full government gone.

My god Katrina could not be handled properly never mind something on this magnitude.



To the OP, the article is slightly misleading. Technically speaking, the money spent of missile defence & on threat reduction could be considered part of preparing for a nuclear attack. I'm pleased to see that they are spending far more on preparing to deflect or eliminate an attack before the payload reaches our country than they are on actually dealing with the aftermath of a detonation. If those figures were reversed, I'd tend to believe that we were expecting a successful attack rather than expecting to be able to defend ourselves from it.


I feel you might find if instead of playing Napolean around the world and harbouring and creating future enemies, like Israel is now creating new suicide bombers, and they FED the World ...

Well don't you think the enemies would disappear and go back to living their lives as they did before meddling, farming, working, raising families, wanting to open mac D's?

Kind Regards,

Elf


the Cause of war is The preparation of War


A very wise Chinese man some millenia ago :-)



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


About 98%.

The United States Federal government spent about $2.9 trillion in 2008. More than $1.5 trillion went to various social engineering programs, or $5,000 for every man, woman and child living in this country...a number that increases every year.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by iceofspades

I wouldn't necessarily call it anything out of the ordinary conspiracy-wise, but it certainly is shocking that so much money is going towards nukes. I mean the Cold War is over, right? That's what the TV says anyway




Great point do the Russians and the Chinese know that?
They are still maintaining and modernizing their forces. hhmmm.

Yeah lets drop our guard yeah that sounds like a good idea.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join