U.S. government is set to spend almost $700 billion on nuclear weapons over the next 10 years ..

lol

We're all f..ked ..

"Congress is in the midst of an intense debate over a massive defense spending bill, and budget negotiations between the administration and congressional leaders are at a pivotal stage. One key part of our nation's budget must be on the table: nuclear weapons."

"The 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. Procurement is racing ahead of policy."

"We're planning to spend as much on nuclear weapons in the next decade as we did in the last on the Iraq War. But toward what end?"

www.nationaljournal.com...

www.theatlantic.com...

reply to post by Dalke07


Hey who needs an economy?? We will have atomic weapons though

reply to post by Dalke07


I thought we stopped building nukes? Wasn't that part of the SALT treaties with the Soviets, or am I mistaken?

I'm guessing most of that money is being spent maintaining them. Hundreds of missile silos and thousands of warheads in storage can't be cheap to maintain.

It would seem like now, with the real threats out of the way (and 20 years later), we could disarm ourselves a bit. I feel like we only need enough nukes to destroy the world....50 times over...instead of 5000.

Just a thought.....

Im so excited!I've always wanted another pair of arms and legs!

Prepare for the future

From source

Typically, contractors and military services low-ball initial estimates to win program approval. Once budgets are locked in, programs build constituent support, thwarting cancellation even as costs double or triple.

This IMO is a problem that should have been solved a long time ago. A big scam that has caused taxpayers time and time again.

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein



The economy is currently offline worldwide, like in U.S.


That means only one thing ..


New way of making money in future become war games end we by all f..ed ..


Can we stop this or is to late ..

How exactly does Cirincione come his number? If true, it certainly makes a compelling argument for funding the Reliable Replacement Warhead program

Only one flag after 40 min .. lol

Supporting nukes with your silent, what you expect from future .. lol

So people cant see where your money spend we all by hungry, glowing or dead in future ..

Long live to U.S .. lol

"Cha-ching" says the military-industrial complex.
Now let's get back to cutting social security and medicare.

i dont have a problem with this the rest of the world arms and we disarm

you cant build a nuke and sit on it for 60 years they do require maintence.

i heard that america has not built a new nuke since reagan.

Originally posted by neo96
i dont have a problem with this the rest of the world arms and we disarm

you cant build a nuke and sit on it for 60 years they do require maintence.

i heard that america has not built a new nuke since reagan.

edit on 15-7-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Thats the rationale behind the reliable warhead replacement program ... build new nukes with a more simple design to replace the old ones.

reply to post by Dalke07


But the unions! And... and... healthcare! And... and... poor people! That's why we are in debt! Don't look at our military! We need them in order to export terror.

reply to post by SirMike


seems to me new designs would be less costly to maintian so it would be a cost savings in the long run.

it also stands to reason the majority of the dod budget goes to maintain older desings that could be replaced with new technology that would also be cheaper to maintain.

an example of this was the f-14 tomcat being retired because of the maintence costs to keep it airworthy and people could extend that rationale behind every weapon system in the us arsenal.

but the biggest cost and the easiest place to save money on the dod budget is personnel.

reply to post by neo96


The other rationale is testing. Although banned by treaty, there will come a day when the reliability of the current nuclear arsenal will come into questions. Recertification of these weapons was always predicated on the availability of pulling one out of inventory and testing it after a predetermined amount of time. The new nuke designs are all tested with computer simulations and subcritical tests.

If we keep the current stickpile indefinately, there will come a day where we WILL have to test one or lose our confidence in its reliability. And if we lose confidence in its reliability, there goes its deterent effect.

With the dilapidated state the Russian nuclear program is in and has been in for the past 20 years, I have always thought that if the Russians were to launch all their weapons a large percentage wouldn’t detonate.