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: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I am not sure that getting rid of nukes is the solution to the world's problems, but I would like to do some what-if analysis.

What would happen if the US decided to stand down everywhere?

What if they pulled all nukes off alert and had all forces return home? Closed all bases except those in CONUS.

What happened in places where the US left already? Canal zone, etc.

Would other countries see this as an opportunity to nuke the US out of existence? or would everyone and everything just go on about its business?

Do we all only have perceived enemies or are there real enemies? Hard to say isn't it.

What are your thoughts?




posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by wolf241e


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)



No no no, the logical number is 9600. Don't try to NOT blow the entire face of the planet off. 5000 only destroys half of the earth. So, you only want the job 1/2 done? My god, what is the world coming to?

Just kidding ..... in case anyone thinks I am serious.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by wolf241e


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)


Not that I disagree with your stance. But if they were to get rid of all but 5000 nukes? The people performing the tasks of maintenance and upgrades would be left w/o jobs.

And here, read this...

The Costs of America's Nuclear Weapons Arsenal

[edit on 1/13/09 by Marked One]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
My fellow ATSers, if I may add my two cents.

First I would like to mention that at first it seemed an inordinately large number. Now I'm not quite sure it isn't more.

Consider the Aircraft and vehicular platforms that are associated with these nukes. All the costs of maintaining an operable, but increasingly obsolete fleet and support aircraft. Housing facilities and security systems are also needed. Special tools (by which I mean of proprietary design) are needed as well as the actual physical space to house and employ the labor, the military personnel, the contractors, the list goes on.

Then add the administrative cost of classification and special communication channels, data management and encryption tech payments to the Iraelis (don't be shocked).

I think the actual cost is considerably higher.

It really matters also to mention that this matter of keeping ourselves so equipped is a one way street. It is unlikely that any reasonable state, in the manner in which we relate to each other, would willingly divest itself of a strategic advantage. The matter of overkill is telling of the likely end of this path. We are either wasting our money, being blackmailed by fear; or we are going to use them - one way or another. I suppose a limited conflict might be a possibility, but I wouldn't wish that on anyone, friend or foe.

Truth is, ever since the military geniuses figured out that killing civilians wins wars quicker than killing soldiers, it is the non-military who seem to suffer the greatest indignities. Nuclear war is no exception.

One last salient point comes to mind. It is true that the cost of buying weapons systems and such is exceedingly high. Part of that is pure greed. The weapons manufacturers and military industrial complex can rightly be considered a single corporate combine - even if it is not so stated. These people PROFIT from war and the fear of war and the OWN our media outright. There may not be a conspiracy in the OP, but that does not mean that the OP doesn't reflect elements of a greater conspiracy.


Thank you.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by xman_in_blackx
 


Good point .

Well this is the very central theme.

The whole concept of such ridiculous amounts in spending and of these weapons since the Manhattan project in the westernised world has been based around a What If notion.

I mean look at the Manhattan project and the subsequent race for the H bomb it took up, I believe 1/5 of the entire GDP of the USA for 15 years or so.

What that means is that one in every 5 hours worked, by every American, 1 in 5 of every investment and resource of this nation went on a What if scenario.

The whole western world went Mad quite literally on a "What If" scenario, but general Stubblebine what if the Commies hit us with 20 of their new bombs... we must have 30 to hit them back with....

Its crazy.

A never ending spiral that reminds me soo much of the paranoia and psychotic conditions people suffer with amplified to entire nations and alliances.

However as you rightly point out, why has no one thought the other way...

"What If we only had 20 of these things, which Mr president is enough totally destroy beyond recognition any other Nation in the world, making any attack pointless, we could stop the route causes of the conflict, and differences we face so maybe one day no-one will need any"

Its not MAD enough that's why.

And anyone at all who believes it is not a sign of the Madness of the human race, a Psychiatric Grand scale disorder within the world to want to spend continuously huge amounts of our Money, Time, and resources, preparing for a What If scenario if they are attacked, whilst their own country, and fellow human men suffer, whilst 2/3rds of the world has been in disease and hunger since the end of the second world war.....

Well all I can say is the Nazi Brainwashing that travelled the Atlantic with Operation paperclip has done its desired job, and made you support a Myth as big as the reasons for the Holocaust, that belief you have is really a psychiatric term called Paranoid Delusional Psychosis.

As its the norm and instilled since birth as a Meme by the lessons learned from the Nazi's it is not accepted or seen as such, but it is.

Picture the scene if you will:

A family (The population and government USA - Or any other Country in the world with stockpiles)

The House (Represents the countries land mass and infrastructure etc)

The Crime Rate & Neighbours & Area (Politics of other countries there liklihood to burgle your house, dispute to violence say in neighbours, destroy it and hurt members of the family in the process)

Now the books balancer and Defender of the family lets be traditional and call him "Dad" is concerned because the neighbours have changed and are a bit hostile. Also the seperate class of the population across the river are acting in criminal ways in his neighbourhood. Some of the Hoods have even on times been violent to his neighbours to get their goods, using guns, or threatening with them.

He totally normally wants to protect his family, and home. So he buys a gun to protect the family in the event of anything happening to defend them.

A totally normal behaviour, sane, he is peeved it cost a quarter of one months pay check, so his son never went to college, and he had to stop his charity donations that month.

The charity was aimed at raising the Hoods life chances, bettering their community and therefore making his neighbourhood safer and his own home less likely to be attacked. There were even cross class marriages taking place and working together before this.

The hoods now are very peeved, when the good honest ones walk to work through this neighbourhood they notice, weapons being carried, and pointed at them, and some of them now cant go to work anyhow because they are in survival mode, no food to keep them going till the first pay check or through college.

The hungry and alienated member of the hood increases as a result and therefore the ones who are angry or just want to survive get involved in the crime on the Families patch, but they need now to do this initially to get more guns themselves to protect themselves.

It continues spirals upwards a bit, but one member of the neighbourhood thinks well what if 2 gangs come not just one to attack my home and kill my family, he knows there are more than one gang now. So he buys a Shotgun too.

OK still sane, a bit silly because now he has to train and give the firearm to his son. the family suffers hardship again that month, making them more angry at the gangs.

Not Madness, there is a small chance he has read the statistics of his family being killed in an robbery, but the liklihhod is very small as the Hoods know they are likely to be killed to.

But this one Man is very very Alpha in his behaviour, he has to be the biggest, best, strongest man, he always has overprotected his family.

So so starts buying a Gun every month.

Some years down the line one of his daughters never finished college, he couldn't pay for it, he now works overtime everyweek just to keep the money coming in for the guns. One son is malnourished, his wife does not have the money to pay for her health care, but he keeps buying a gun every month.

Now we have a family where they still have their home, but he has been late on some payments, the family is ostracised from most of the street as they see him a Gun Junkie and quite aggressive in his views on this. The Hoods hate him because they know the amount of guns he has and he never helps them out. He is concerned you see if every gang is going to come at once to burgle his home and kill his family.

It comes to the attention of the social services that the children are not fed properly, something is up, they have not been to the doctor, the man is now a recluse except when he goes out armed to the teeth.

They visit and find 500 guns hidden in the house, he had read from estimates their are 500 gangs. "What If" they all attacked at once, because surely they had been planning that, it was not his fault, he was doing the right thing defending his family.

The social workers see the effects of all these guns and chemicals in the house, one of the kids once got sick from gunpowder OD by accident when he was mixing some upstairs. The child died young.

The family had not seen a doctor in 50 months and were ill, and now only 1 out of 5 of his kids had gone to college. they were not starving but some of the children were malnourished. He wouldn't stop testing them in his garden either, he had now bought a cannon from a tank, just in case "What If".

What really upset the health care visitors was the young born son, born when dad only had 5 guns, who loved them, talked about the power and damage his dad could do to anyone who threatened them in any way, apparently one could Turn you into glass with heat, which was often quoted by little joey in school to anyone who even challenged him verbally.

Joey liked guns, he wanted dad to have more and big ones, it was all he ever knew, and got a sense of pride form showing off about the size of his dads biggest Magnum and Rifle. How this gave him power or perceived power.

The health care workers realised Joey was a bully, and it would be hard to change this now. they were more concerned though as Joey had never been to the dentist and couldn't afford the books to do his course properly, but mention this and Joey would brag and support dad getting new guns, because "what if".

The Family dad was visited by a community Psychiatrist, that afternoon.
He saw Louise crying because she had breast cancer from all the chemicals in the house, and couldn't afford treatment with the real life savings experts, dad had bought a gun last week that could shoot down rabbit holes, in case the Hoods tunnelled their or hid their own guns there.

The psychiatrist diagnoses Delusional Paranoid Psychosis.

For his own safety, and the welfare and safety of the very family he had been misguided in trying to protect, Dad is placed in a secure unit, and prescribed a range of treatments to try and help him, you see even though the Mortgage company had sent a Foreclosure notice, and it looked like he was going to get made redundant, he had still ordered the two latest and massively expensive guns available because "What If"

He already had enough guns to kill ever Hood member alive today.

If anyone believes a person acting like this would be allowed to continue in such a way, you are as deluded as the Dad.

I mean cmon really where is the difference, I know Joey does not see a problem....But a Problem there certainly is.

Nationalised Insanity.

Kind Regards

Elf.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
reply to post by MischeviousElf
 
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.


No one is barring the use of devices as powerful as Tsar Bomba. It won't be used simply because it's impractical. It was actually 'de-tuned' and replacing some of it's fissile components with lead.

But with all out fissile primary, the yield would exceed 100 megatons(10,000x more powerful than that of Hiroshima). They are probably just too scared what a 100 megaton device might do(or simply ran out of suitable test site for a 100mt device) so replaced some components to only yield 50mt.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
reply to post by MischeviousElf
 


Wow, where to start?

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


Why is it your national security states responsibility to kill more than a million additional Iraqi's in the last five years while essentially cheering on the Zionist attack on Gaza? Why not rather end world hunger so the US people can for the first time ever have a legitimate reason to feel that the US is in fact a force for 'good' in the world?


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.


All far better options than blowing up other countries that never attacked the US or threatened to do so.


Where do you stop? Yeah, starving kids in Africa, sucks huh? Still, not my concern. Keeping MY country safe, however... very important to me.


Safe from what? Who has attacked the US at all ( or more specifically unprovoked) in the last hundred years?


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.


Nonsense. The Us government do not have sufficient arms to kill even most undefended nations and if it were to use it against them it would be completely exposed to Russian strategic arms which were comparable if not superior in the first place.

There never was a serious threat from Rogue governments in at least a century and arguments to contrary are easily dismisses trough research.


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.


And they wouldn't need or want them if they were not being threatened by a US national security state that threatens and actually attacks and invades foreign nations.


These are all men who wallow in affluence, greed, and hedonism.


Neither seems to be that but it can certainly be said of the last three US presidents. Please do so research or even introspection.


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.


1: Sane people do not want to start wars with the US however wrong and predatory US economic and political policies are.

2: The US does not have the largest or the most dangerous nuclear arsenal in the world.


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.


Beside Russia, perhaps.


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...


Where have national liberation movements ( as the vast majority of the groups the US ever attacked or threatened to attack are known to be) proven their goals of martyrdom and destruction? Why not discuss such fallacious reasoning here instead of presuming it without anything but resorting to propaganda induced convention? Why are major US political and other officials not be assassinated and car bombs exploding in the US if these 'religious fanatics' where serious about doing the US people , and not the US national security state, harm? Do you think the US national security state has the power to stop such attacks after their utter failure to even intercept commercial airliners with their numerous instruments of war?

This is why people such as yourself can not be trusted with common sense. Despite the fact that the attacks on 9-11 could have been prevented by conventional means ( interceptor aircraft/missiles or intelligence gathering ) the US government showed no such capacity. To suggest that it could fight a asymmetric war on foreign or domestic soil is in my opinion laughable.


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.


And the technology to shoot down ICBM's have existed since at least the early 60's in both the US and Russia. Russia chose to develop it while the US government decided that it's people were expendable.


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.


And as logic dictates one does not stop your preparation at avoiding a war by focusing all your efforts to bribe and buy political power. Missile defense and threat reduction isn't bad things but passive preparation are both cheaper and far more practical and feasible. National ABM defenses takes decades to coordinate and develop and the US national security state apparently long ago absconded from investing in either practical or active measures with which to protect the American citizenry.


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 successfully attack rather than expecting to be able to defend ourselves from it.


As both the Russians and American governments know some missiles and bombs are bound to get trough no matter the defensive measures and not to prepare the entire country in practical ways ( Switzerland can afford it) is criminal.

In conclusion the US government can not and will not end even hunger in the US so it's hardly surprising that it will refuse to sign even a theoretical right to food; Americans do after all only have rights to life ( meaning the government can't just kill you even if it refuses to feed you), liberty and pursuit of happiness. What isn't covered here is just how people in the US or anywhere else can pursue liberty of happiness without any minimum guarantees in terms of sufficient foods to ensure the good health required to do much in terms of liberty and happiness.

Frankly i have far more respect for people that ask for and governments that gives and acts on economic rights than i have for these empty guarantees of 'liberty' IF you can feed yourself despite the best efforts of your unelected government and their corporate paymasters.

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join