Slashdot Mirror
Cut Down On Nukes To Shave the Deficit
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.'"
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
how long until
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?
North Korea and Iran are not the problem. We've got the fly swatters for that. It's China - which isn't a problem militarily now but certainly could be and Russia (or whatever the former CCCP morphs into) with an enormous number of powerful, accurate nucs and a large identity problem.
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
indeed, north korea and iran, neither of which have operating nuclear bombs, and hugo chavez's talk; that's exactly why we need enough of a nuclear arsenal to destroy the world several times over as well as a dozen brand-new nuclear subs costing 110 billion dollars. to stop hugo chavez's dream of someday going nuclear.
Because those next-generation bombers and submarines can't possibly be used for anything other than nuclear warheads.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
We currently have a stockpile of 5,113 warheads if Wiki is to be believed. We could get away with 1,000. That's more than enough to keep China and Russia scared via MAD. But as far as those other nations are concerned, we only to use *1* warhead EACH. That alone should be enough to inflict serious pain if not total collapse of the nations you mentioned. Just look at Japan. It only took 2. And they were far more dedicated at imperialism than the other nations you mentioned. NK is a joke anyways. Poor SOBs wouldn't dare fire off a nuke, unless "suicide by cop" was what they were after.
Life is not for the lazy.
We've got enough to radiate entire countries, why do we need more? Okay yeah, now Chavez has one or two
but this Jimmy Carter attitude
Seriously? Grow up. This isn't a "Jimmy Carter attitude", unless you associate Jimmy Carter with common sense.
How does leaving us at the mercy of our enemies enhance our security?
How does your Ronald Reagan fear mongering attitude help us? See what I did there? How in the hell does this "leave us at the mercy of our enemies"?
My work here is dung.
That's just dumb. If you want to smash, rather than shaving the budget, you would buy more nukes, and nuke delivery systems, and withdraw all the troops we have stationed everywhere. We'd save a trillion dollars a year. You could use the proceeds from that to fund universal health care and a dozen missions to Mars. Or, you know, pay down the debt. Whatever.
I know a lot of the man power and costs is in keeping the weapons viable for use, but what would the cost to decommission them be? You cant just let them sit on the shelf, they have to be maintained or taken apart.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
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.
~Syberz
One of the big expenses is the reliability of the nuclear arsenal. Nuclear material is hot - radioactive - and that means it's also "disappearing" as it decays. Triggers, main charges, and other elements of a nuclear warhead do age and this needs to be addressed. We've done a lot of work with computer models since we're no longer willing to test fire any of these weapons, even underground. But this only goes so far, and if you ARE going to rely on those computer models, then you HAVE to make sure that what was modeled is actually what is IN those warheads. If we don't do this, it won't matter how many missiles and warheads we have. They won't be viewed as a credible threat if we can't show that they'll actually work. And all of this is in support of the strategy of deterrence, which seems to be our only strategy so far, since we're not willing to forcibly stop proliferation. Whether deterrence is even a viable strategy going forward is certainly up for debate. But I can tell you this. If North Korea or Iran end up nuking us somehow, we damn sure better be able to flatten those countries, or else we should get used to the idea of getting periodically nuked.
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
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.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
Let's keep arguing about cutting Medicare and Social Security benefits while this $700 billion dollar waste of cash silently slips by!
The distraction is working.
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Just a reminder, that in order to FIX our government you will need to vote REPUBLICAN next year. Let's review:
Republicans will fix this nation! DEMOCRATS ARE AND WILL CONTINUE TO FUCK IT UP!
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, they need to be replaced. In many cases, the replacements can be more multipurpose than the units they replace.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Look at your biggest expenditure and start shaving it off bit by bit. That gives you the best return for the least amount of pain - And in the US that would be 1% off the militaries budget equating to many more % off someone else's budget. However the US is very conflicted about its military and how it uses it, and how much is actually needed ("we aren't the worlds police, but we can't not play that role"). But the population in general seems to equate military spending with greatness ("we can't let those god damned commies/terrists/gays/foreigners sneak up on us, like they did last time") so I can't see then ever agreeing to cut military spending.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
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.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZMwKPmsbWE
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
"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 to shoulder policing the whole world for threats until the end of time. We will run out of money way before that happens. Oh wait, we already did run out of money. But can we figure out how to maintain security in a world where our military doesn't outnumber all other nations' combined? Hint: "More is better" is not the answer.
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"...
There are a lot of pockets to line before any of that money actually turns into rocket fuel.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
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.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
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
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
It did only take 2 to flatten japan, but you do have to compare the square mileage of japan vs Russia or china.
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.
We only have a finite amount of money available to spend on the military. Maintaining nuclear weapons is a very expensive process, and when your nuclear arsenal could destroy the entire world multiple times over the question becomes, "Could that money be better spent on conventional weapons, ships, airplanes, etc.?" The majority of military engagements that the US expects to fight over the next few decades are going to be non-nuclear, and we will need plenty of money for guns, ammunition, fuel, vehicles, armor, and all the coordination and planning that a modern military operation involves.
I would read that statement as saying that looking forward, military intelligence analysts believe that the United States is going to be engaged in military operations that call for conventional weapons, guided missiles, drone attacks, and so forth, and that we are spending money maintaining more nuclear weapons than we actually need to remain secure.
Palm trees and 8
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 lower their risk to IEDs. The current bulk of the US nuclear arsenal is a relic of the Cold War and is not suited for the threats that currently faces our country.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Well, less money spent on nukes means more money spent on something else. Fewer nukes means less chances of one being stolen (might be a small chance, but still it could happen) or sabotage. Less chance of an accident involving radioactive materials. More fuel for nuclear ships. Basically, one you get above the 1,000 nuke point (and we're at 5,000+ ATM) you can already kill basically everyone, even with a fairly high failure rate, so more is actually bad. We kinda needed it during the Cold War because we didn't want the Russians to think they might have had an advantage (possibly preemptively destroying silo's, whatever). Or maybe we didn't, IDK. We certainly don't need it now.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
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?
Reagan won out the cold war without firing a shot.
And he also ensured that our future would forever be saddled with debt. 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?
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 blame on communist leaders and we'll talk. I rip China apart more than anybody on Slashdot, I don't need to hear you assume that I think they're misunderstood angels. Their leaders are human rights violators but I don't hold the citizens responsible for death. When you nuke a country do you think the leaders are the only ones that get hurt?
The only fear monger is you "Oh God we're all gonna die!"
What in the hell are you talking about? We're trying to have a discussion about possible ways to decrease our spending so we can catch up with the insane amount of debt we've been accumulating. And you totally skirted any indication that you even understand that whether we build a thousand more nukes or stick with our current numbers, the outcome is the same. We could hold the entire world hostage right now if we wanted to just by threatening to detonate all of our nuclear weapons on ourselves and I think it's time to consider that enough force if to increase that means $700 billion.
My work here is dung.
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.
No sig today...
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.
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 Soviets and bomb stuff, so the proposal wasn't exactly feasible. But some guys at the Naval Research Institute said the idea had merit. Selected comment from the link is blockquoted below...
If the Government is going to spend a billion dollars on new submarines to fight the soviet menace, at the very least they could design in features that would be useful for disaster response... I imagine steam vents that could be attached to external electrical generators, or bubble generators.
Because we don't know when or where the next offshore oil rig is going to blow out...
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
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.
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
The fall of the Soviet Union happened because its economy collapsed, and thus so did it's military might. In that order. In fact, it collapsed because they over exerted itself on military expenditures.
Life is not for the lazy.
>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.
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron." ~Dwight D. Eisenhower "The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without." ~Dwight D. Eisenhower Eisenhower was a great Republican, 5 star general, Supreme Commander, from the midwest with a lot of common sense.
To my knowledge, it isn't so much as area coverage as it is about decimating entire population centers. That's why cities are targeted exclusively and not open fields of land. Cities are also viewed as part of a nations overall military complex. So it's fair game in warfare. It should also be known that nukes create an EMP already.
Life is not for the lazy.
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.
If we (The US) were the only country with nukes, I would agree with you. But since Russia also has just as many, and other countries (like China, NK, Iran, and others) are spending so much to develop nuclear weapons of their own, having a large arsenal of them will keep this conflict to nothing more than a war of attrition, which is a war the US is more than happy to fight. The moment we drop the number of nuclear devices in our arsenal, we open ourselves up to attack and there will be nothing to stop these other countries from firing on us.
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.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I can dream, can't I?
Do be aware that that has impacts on the economy. Strangely enough, we build a lot of our military hardware in the US. Just stop buying it, and an awful lot of US jobs go out the window. And then those unemployed people stop buying VCRs and houses and fast food...
I'm not saying its a reason to not cut the military budget - it isn't. For one, if we're going to keep people employed by dumping tax dollars into an industry, I can think of a few I'd rather pick than Killing People. But if we're going to stop spending all those dollars in the first place, which is the only way to pare down the deficit, we might need to spend _some_ of the dollars we save trying to create jobs to replace the ones we remove.
That's just dumb.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
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.
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. You cut our arsenal too much, you give "the other guy" a sporting chance.
If you think the only "other guy" left is some Arabs in a tent, you're out of your mind. We're all friend and all enemies in this world. The only sensible strategy is to keep us safe and scare away anyone that wants to give us a go. You can get all this for a FRACTION of what we're spending on the rest of the military.
You want to cut military spending? Good. Cut the Army. Stop bombing everyone. Stop nation building. Make it real clear we'll defend ourselves and our allies with our full remaining might. Cheap and effective.
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 -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...
Woopsies. To err is human in case you didn't know.
~Syberz
Hur dur it only took two nukes to stop Japan! Sorry, as a historian when I see things like this I want to retch. It took four years of hard fighting and millions of casualties on both sides to get Japan to a point where only two nukes were necessary, not to mention that Japan wasn't even in range of nuclear attack in the first years of the war assuming that we could have had the bombs and planes earlier than we did. If both weapons were dropped on Japan in 1942 or 43, it's unlikely that they would have surrendered at that point. It was a combination of the effects of the nuclear attacks with the reality of the imminent invasion of the Japanese mainland after the fall of Okinawa as well as the fire bombings of major Japanese cities in 1945 that in total were enough to tip the Japanese emperor and the military over the edge of surrender (in fact it was the fire bombings, not the nuclear bombings, which were the initial catalyst that started Emperor Hirohito working against the military toward a peace process, see F. J. Bradley's No Strategic Targets Left. "Contribution of Major Fire Raids Toward Ending WWII" p. 38.). It was NOT the nukes alone, nor could it have been.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
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.
Once you can destroy the world why would you need more of them? Let the Russians and Chinese have more, they won't do them any good, they can only bomb the place once anyway.
ics
If Hugo Chavez wanted to damage the US, he only needs to cut the oil flow (right now, Venezuelan oil accounts for 10% of US oil imports). Hardly an enemy!
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
.... But the industrial military complex would not get the money they they have grown accustom to. Republicans are all for cutting government spending until you really are talking about cutting government spending. And not that the Democrats disagree. They are all on board, because we are talking serious campaign cash here.
The fact is that there is no justification for the level nuclear and conventional forces we are paying to maintain now. We should be building down, and maintaining enough nuclear weapons to serve as a deterrent. We have to have perhaps even the best military technology. But the idea that we have to spend at these levels to be safe is hugely over blown. China needs us as a market. Their nuclear arsenal should be counted as protecting us. Same with Europe. Asia's Industrial giants (like Japan, S Korea, etc.) can also be counted on for conventional deterrents, if not nuclear. All these countries are safe, and not spending at the percentage of GNP nor in absolute dollars the way we are. Why? Because they don't have to, and neither do we.
We can reduce our military expenses across the board. It is great to invest in technology, and even in military infrastructure. But there isn't any point in having a great defense if we collapse under the debt required to construct and maintain a huge military. And many, many people (esp. Republicans) argue that it is this outcome, of allowing their military to destroy our economy, that brought down Russia.
Why do we think we are immune?
Cut expenses. If you don't want to cut services, and you don't want to raise taxes, then cut the military.
Is this really that hard to understand? Why doesn't the public wake up to the common sense of this? What does the military have to do, wire tap young murdered girls before anyone cares?
And we've already signed and ratified the new START treaty to reduce that number by about two thirds to 1550 nuclear warheads and drastically reduce the number of launchers available.
So, I'm not really sure what exactly you're problem is. You can't just dispose of nukes by detonating them. You have to go through the steps of disassembling them, weapons inspections and dispose of the waste. Even chemical weapons which have been banned for years take time to properly dispose of once they get banned.
... 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.
NK, doesn't really have any nukes. The nuclear warheads they've got are still so large that they aren't of any actual use. They can't mount them on a missile and they can't fly a plane to the US without getting shot down over an unpopulated area.
You see this money goes to paying a lot of bright people and fast computers to design these nuclear weapons, we could shift these resources (people & computers) to other tasks (such as safer nuclear reactors to solve global warming) but we can't just stop paying these people and give the money to doctors for healthcare instead. We need these people and their skills, we can retarget their efforts to other endeavours but these new efforts still need money in the same way that the nuclear weapons program does. So you can't just save money (without the cost of loosing a huge brain trust) but you can invest in other things with that money.
I'm not sure your idea is even possible given our current understanding of nuclear fission or fusion. What you propose is a device that fundamentally alters a basic quantum reaction across an arbitrarily broad space... I have to doubt that 300 billion could devise such a thing, especially given that it is apparently impossible to modern science.
A missile shield, however, could be done. Probably for quite a bit less than that, and would minimize the risk from ICBMs. I doubt there's much to be done for ground based devices, however, aside from intelligence operations to track existing warheads and discover new ones.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
That's not the reason at all. Currently there is one country in the world that can shoot down ballistic missiles (though not more than a handful on a good day), and we're not likely to shoot them at ourselves.
The reason we have so many is a surprise attack will destroy most of them in their silos. The calculus of MAD is "We have enough nukes that no matter how well you plan your attack there will always be at least a few dozen remaining for payback."
The Russian arsenal is still there, and it would take decades to rebuild ours if relations turned sour. Any significant reductions in the US strategic nuclear arsenal need to be contingent on an analysis of the first strike potential of other nations.
Oh yeah? Why? Or you just prefer to make snarky comments with no factual information in them?
Not sure where the attitude against Argentina came from, but they are some ok dudes...
Maybe he's from the UK and pissed off about the Falklands War?
I am officially gone from
This is simply wrong. People who spend their time thinking about these issues don't believe this at all. That's why we have nukes.
Houston? Who cares. Let the Mexicans have all of Texas back...and the people currently residing there.
My understanding is that they are trying to update the warheads themselves as well as the delivery systems. This is both due to the fact that the existing ones are aging and becoming less reliable and because newer ones are more efficient, thus requiring fewer of them. This in turn also means lower maintenance costs going forward.
They certainly aren't trying to build new warheads to boost the count. We have treaties in place that prevent that.
Congress critter discussion:
--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?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Russia is so poor that we cleanup their excess nuclear weapons (remember John Kerry wanted to double the program in the 2004 Presidential debates?). There is no way that if the US dropped its total number Russia would not follow suit to save money too. China might want to hang on to a larger stockpile, but there is no advantage to them to striking the US--their economy would completely collapse, their rich and ruling classes would be outraged.
The US submarines can easily handle any retaliation required on their own. They are unlikely to be taken out by a surprise attack.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
"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?
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I'd hate to have your job these days. Any little conflict is a WAR!!!!!, any tragedy a holocaust, and everyone is a Nazi if you don't like them.
Oil accounts for 92% of its exports. Most of that must be imported to the U.S. Venezuela’s oil is heavy and loaded with sulfur, unlike Libya’s light sweet stuff. Nobody else can buy the stuff because there refineries can’t handle it..
The government is heavily dependent on this. The oil pays for subsidized food, payments on the national debt [which is growing rapidly], pay for Cuban security specialist and doctors. etc.
I think the U.S. could get by easier without Venezuela then the other way. The U.S. would face $5 gas. Venezuela would face ruin.
Why wouldn't they stockpile biological agents if the US increases its nuclear stockpile? Isn't this one-upmanship (really more like chickenshit) the engine of any arms race?
I wish the rest of the world would just give the US the assets it wants, and we could stop all this foolishness.
We could pretty much destroy the whole world even after decimating our current nuclear arsenal five times over.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
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.
Indeed, we are clearly past the point where we'd be vastly better off investing in better delivery systems for half or a quarter of the number of weapons instead of maintaining the current weapons.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
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.
We already did that. With better delivery systems we've decommissioned about 90% of our nulear arsenal, IIRC. Off the top of my head we went from 25k nukes at the peak to 2500 nukes now. A lot of nuclear silos were shut down. It's mostly just the subs and B2s now.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Submarines are best for retaliation. B2s are best for threatening a first strike. Almost no silos are left; those nukes are long gone. 2500 bombs is a small arsenal.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
As others have pointed out, you have to assume that we lose 95% of whatever we have during the first strike, and that only half of the remainder will reach their targets, and still have enough to devastate our opponent.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Because you don't know how may will be available should need arise to use them.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
Nuking a few major cities would just piss us off. Bombing cities does little to reduce the military or industrial capacity of a nation. Bombing the Pentagon perhaps? There's a reason the shop in the center is the "Ground Zero Cafe" - the military is completely prepared to operate with all the obvious targets already nuked. It's not easy to make a country incapable of war.
We do keep around 1 nuke for every foreign nuke launch site, just on general principle, which principle can obviously lead to an arbitrarily large number of nukes on both sides as it did in the cold war. Without that goal, 500 would probably be enough.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
This whole article has a wrong premise. All the stats cited only talk about which hardware gets introduced or upgraded. They don't mention that it happens simultaneously with retiring some of the all hardware. Just because we are spending money on the nukes, doesn't mean we are increasing the nuclear arsenal. First of all, it takes money to dismantle old nukes to use the materials for civilian purposes. And second of all, updates to electronics and guidance systems to use modern components make the operation possible. If those are not updated, they would be using electronics which would be more and more expensive to maintain in the long run. Old components and expertise to use them becomes more rare and, therefore, more expensive in the long run.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Have you *read* Atlantic? I - for some reason - had a subscription for a while. It's like the Fox News of the left, in written form.
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.
In war you have plan for unknown unknowns. Which means that everyone plans for the case that there is way for an sneak attack which disables most of the opponents launching capabilities, too.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
31k peak to about 5k now. Can't see any reason we couldn't get down to 2k with absolute confidence in our ability to destroy all of humanity.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Remember the film, Independence Day, when the Aliens had blown up all the major cities and the President decided to hit back with nukes and Jeff Goldblum got all incredulous " If we shoot our missiles then everyone will shoot their missiles. Why, they'll fuckup the environment!" I think that was the last gasp of the MAD doctrine that leaked out into the popular culture.
It not MAD anymore - introducing NUTS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_utilization_target_selection
NUTS is a more sound doctrine that recognizes the fact that dead hostages are worthless.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
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.
Violence may be the last refuge of the incompetent, but that doesn't mean exclusively. Self-defense against violence generally also involves violence.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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?
Argentina is close enough. When you have nuclear weapons you don't need pinpoint geography ...
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
" but this Jimmy Carter attitude that the rest of the world is a cute cuddly place is horribly misguided.
Jimmy Carter never said that. If we had actually listen to him,. we wouldn't have so many people building nuclear arms because they wouldn't feel threatened. Shockingly, when a Nuclear power(US) invaded a non-nuclear power for fabricated reasons, non-nuclear powers want nuclear weapons.
Bad foreign policy is what has caused this.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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!!!
The warheads we have now are not the same kind of warheads we dropped on Japan. Back in the day, the strategy was to fly one large bomb over a city and drop it. The idea behind this was that since you don't have pinpoint precision when dropping a huge bomb from a plane, you make the explosion huge so that aiming is irrelevant. These days, we'd launch a laser-guided ICBM loaded with a dozen smaller warheads, which can each be targeted to where they'd do maximum damage (but without the impressive, city-leveling power of something like Fat Man). You're probably still correct that we have significantly more than we need, but it's not a totally apples to apples comparison.
And the man that brings a knife to a gun fight dies. - a still breathing incompetent.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I am confident that very few here will understand this, but part of what goes into making the US dollar the de facto currency throughout the world is the US military's strength. The reason that investors flock to US treasuries, keeping interest rates at insanely low levels, despite the massive debt, large persistent deficits and dysfunctional government, is to a large part because of the military. Don't misunderstand, there are other positive reasons why investors choose the US, but as the Gartman Letter has rightly pointed out, "The reserve currency of the world has been and always shall be the currency of the nation with the strongest military". Cutting back on the military, while the US owes so much money to China, and everyone else, would be financial, if not corporeal suicide.
https://twitter.com/#!/cnbcfastmoney/status/63978352364617729
A little hurricane hits one city and look what happens.
Losing the biggest four or five cities in your country would certainly be a pretty good deterrent. The current nuclear stockpile and the "one nuke for every foreign launch site" policy is a ridiculous attempt to make nuclear warfare "winnable." That dream died with the invention of the ballistic missile submarine, but some people failed to notice.
Why do you have to assume only half reach their targets? Actually, why do you make all of those assumptions? 95% of our forces in one hit? Even Pearl Harbor wasn't that bad.
September and October would have been pretty good for the Japanese. They would have gone from fear that the US had a whole bunch of nukes to realization that they didn't have any.
The bombs dropped on Japan were basically hand built. They were like expensive Italian cars. The Ford of nukes didn't come around until AFTER the war. Everything nuclear during the war was a prototype, and a research prototype at that. Sure, the program could have ramped up and wiped out Japan if necessary, but not in anything like the time frame you're imagining.
"But if we get an extra ten billion dollars a year, we can pay down our debt."
I really am sorry to be the one to tell you, but you guys are going to need more like an extra trillion dollars a year before you can start paying down your debt.
Let's see.... The Atlantic, Slate and CBS all considered America's nuclear deterrent and concluded that we should disarm.
Move along. Nothing new to see here....
The US has cut its arsenal down from something like 20K nukes to about 5K, and those are becoming obsolete. Meanwhile, neither Bush nor Obama has been able to keep N. Korea from going nuclear, keep Iran from trying to go nuclear, keep Pakistan from ramping-up production of nuclear bombs and spreading the technology, nor keep China from increasing its arsenal or Russia from modernizing its launchers. Yeah, this sure sounds like a great time to disarm, I'm sure the rest of the world will follow since the history of the world is replete with examples of global peaceful coexistence and cooperation....
Only a moron thinks that a weapon in his own hands is more dangerous than more of the same weapons in the hands of his enemy...which, of course, explains Atlantic Slate and CBS...
The Constitution requires the federal government to provide for the national defense.... but then The Atlantic, Slate, and CBS probably think the Constitution is either quaint and obsolete or a "living document" with words whose meanings can only be discovered via large applications of pot.
Incorrect. One W88 warhead has a yield of 475 kt. Fatman was only 22 kt. A Trident II missile can be fitted up to twelve W88 warheads (MIRVed), but international treaties sets a limitation to either eight or four, not sure though.
So not only our nuclear weaponry is smaller, but also lighter and more devastating. Of course, there are theoretical limits as to how far a warhead design will scale in yield.
Life is not for the lazy.
Probably the best use of funds would be for human intelligence officers who can get reliable information to those in power. The cheapest war is the one you never fight.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
"Nuclear reductions" are bilateral. If the US gives up 1000 warheads, Russia does too. MOST people who know what they're talking about believe that bilateral reductions improve US security. You've got LOTS of nukes. A few less isn't going to make any meaningful difference. But Russia has lots too, and less money to look after them. The more pressure on their nuke budget, the more likely it is one of those will go missing, either sold, misplaced or stolen.
I'm living in Titska Watitch Territory, and lived here most of my life. Almost all of the Europeans have left Europe for a reason. They came for the land and an improved quality of life. It doesn't give them the right to come illegally.
Preserving the existing aresenal is all fine and well. I'm not for eliminating it. The current warheads have x number of years left in them. What's it going to cost to restart the program?
If I remember, there 's little or no capability to make the nuclear material anymore or at least the tritium to add to the weapons. And I don't think this is a process where you're "Hey, we need tritium" "Ok i'll have it for you tomorrow."
So if we maintain and THEN need to build new bombs, whats it going to cost? Probably north of $1 trillion/yr.
On the contrary: I think that every American whose family has been in this country for more than three generations should be considered native Americans and should get a nice place in a cozy reservation somewhere. I suggest Florida. Immigrants are the true life, blood and spirit of the US, native Americans should get out of the way.
Oh please. Spare me that Native American tripe of oppression. The Americas were never a nation of people. It was populated by hundreds if not thousands of tribes. Many whom were constantly at war with each other. By tomorrow, foe turned to into trading friends, and back again to foe. Yes, there was culture among the tribes. There was also pure chaos. No unification. It was this behavior that led to the inevitable colonization of the Americas. The simple fact is, if Europeans didn't, the Chinese would have...eventually (some say the natives are ancient Chinese descendants anyways). Native American ass was ready for the taking. Similar events have also taken place on other continents around the world too. It's a natural evolution to the concept we call "Nation" to this day. A system of cultural unification that enables a strong and cohesive military to take place and protect the land.
Now, you can call me an asshole for telling it like it is. I'm not trying to be, but that's the damn truth. Don't deny it.
Life is not for the lazy.
September and October would have been pretty good for the Japanese. They would have gone from fear that the US had a whole bunch of nukes to realization that they didn't have any.
Looks like it's more in the middle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Plans_for_more_atomic_attacks_on_Japan
The U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October.
The reference given says they expected them to be produced one every ten days.
It certainly works for Japan. They've had an outsourced nuclear deterent for decades. Of course, no one asks if there really are nuclear weapons on board the carrier that's based at Yokosuke and the like. Wink. Nudge.
Maybe we could contract with Pakistan or India to provide ours. They might even get into a bidding war over it.
You don't get what I'm talking about. It's not the illegals in Texas I'm complaining about; it's the white people like George W. Bush and all yall's back-ways of thunking, like fighting a woman's right to choose and such. You are the type I am SPECIFICALLY insulting, regardless of your Texas history.
Yall foreigners know nothin bout Texas. Cause of our thunking, we're the #1 state in the union for job growth an business. And have been for several years now. Ya hear?
I laugh at you :)
Life is not for the lazy.
The Russians have systems capable of intercepting an ICBM has well. They are expensive to they are mostly centered around Moscow. They also have mobile systems like the S-400 and the S-300 PMU which has been exported to several countries (including China). China has also developed some native interceptors.
I didn't even think of this, but I do agree reducing our upkeep on nuclear arms is a very good idea for reducing our budget. However, just like a few people pointed out, if you don't have any nukes you start to look weak. Most of the world still operates on the third world principle, where true strength is derived from might and power. Being able to bulldog anything into the ground. Even if it shows more strength to disarm ourselves when other people are building nukes.
Nukes in themselves are a deterrent, but I think we should start concentrating on something similar to a nuclear shield or some sort of passive method for cleaning up after nuclear fallout. Being on the defensive traditionally requires less resources and it's a completely different game since no one is doing it. Adding to that, more R&D could be spent on better nukes that will get to their target without exploding, rather then the massive hindenburgs of nukes we built in the 60s.
The US is turning into a giant me-too, where we do everything everyone else does that we see as good or makes them look good, but we generally don't plow ahead of anyone anymore. We invented nukes in the first place, you think we'd be the first country that figures out how to deal with them.
Does that 5k include tactical weapons? Tactical weapons are cheap to maintain since they aren't serviced the same way (though I hope we don't still have any Davy Crockett nuclear morters!).
Also, we've never had enough to destroy all of humanity, just to cause a tech reset - most of humanity is much easier.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Well, yes, a tech reset, and the chance of civilization rising again would be small given that there wouldn't be any accessible oil the second time around. It would also stand a pretty good chance of killing most of the vegetation, which while not a direct kill for us might still completely wipe out humanity.
The 5k includes about 500 tactical.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
The Japanese used very few nuclear weapons at Pearl Harbor. If they had used more, our losses would likely have reached 95% of our materiel at that site.
Only half of the missiles reach their target because in the very limited history of missiles, to reach even that level would be generous.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
It was fair game in 1945. The political fallout from making a nuclear first strike on a city today would probably be 1000 worse than the radioactive fallout.
FGD 135
It did only take 2 to flatten japan, but you do have to compare the square mileage of japan vs Russia or china.
You also have to take the yield into comparison. Both bombs dropped on Japan had a combined yield equivalent of approximately 38 kilotons TNT. These days we have plenty of 100+ kt nuclear weapons, with delivery systems ranging from stealth to fighter jets to ballistic missiles.
Also, we didn't flatten Japan so much as we forced them to either risk further immense destruction or surrender. A couple of well-placed nukes could have a similar effect on a larger nation, provided that they also lack the ability to successfully retaliate. The situation gets more complicated with a country like Russia that has a diverse nuclear stockpile that we aren't likely to incapacitate before a return strike.
I wasn't aware our cruise missiles or ICBMs had such a poor navigation capabilities.
Even if Hawaii had been wiped off the map from a nuke 95% of our forces would not have been lost as they are spread out strategically for a reason. We don't keep large swaths of our ships close together, the worst you get is a battle group close together. Pearl Harbor taught us a lesson about that as well of course. Either way, there is no scenario where 95% of our forces would be wiped off the map in one strike. That is just fear mongering, there is no nation on this earth capable of accomplishing that in the next decade. China is the only nation with the economic strength to deploy such a program and it wouldn't be in their interests to use nuclear weapons much like it's not in Russia's interests.
And as a historian I understand that it took more than US casualties to achieve the end result. You think that the British, ANZAC, Chinese, etc. soldiers didn't matter? In this context, what it took to make the Japanese surrender, those casualties very much matter. So STFU.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
The nuclear bombs are $700 billion over 10 years? What about saving $600 billion a year, or $6 TRILLION dollars over 10 years? Would American like that? Here's how, spend MORE on nukes, but nuclear power not nuclear weapons, and get off foreign oil. Do everything you can to electrify transport; electric cars, fast rail, trolley buses. The EIA says peak coal could be around 2030, so it's time to start building out your electric transport systems and Gen3.5 nukes (like the AP1000 that are incredibly safe) and Gen4 nukes that eat waste. (When GE finally releases it's S-PRISM). Whether or not you think spending $700 billion on nuclear BOMBS over 10 years, well, that's up to your defence policy. But I will say that it could make sense to enter more weapons treaties and reduce the global arms by BURNING the bombs in nuclear reactors for clean energy security!
Even if I agreed with that, I'm struggling to find the ulterior motive of "the left."
2500 is not a small arsenal when it is far more than all non-Russian non-US bombs put together. Russia has traditionally been eager to participate in START.
Is it really still necessary to be able to threaten a nuclear first strike? The US seems to be more than capable of holding off any conventional threat without having to go nuclear.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
No, I won't spare you that, because Europeans did in fact war among themselves, they had much more nations/tribes and fractions than today. Europe was also consisting of tribes long after AD. There is also a reason they are called the First Nations in Canada.
Europe's germanic people had the tribes of the Franks, Saxons, Vandals, Lombards, and Goths. The Visigoths and the Basques lived in what is now Spain. Heck, Germany was not much more than a collection of city states until the second half of the 19th century where foe turned to into trading friends, and back again to foe. There is a reason Napoleon just steamrolled right over the place in the battle against the Third Coalition.
120 years before Columbus, the countries of what is today Scandinavia was little more than a collection of loosely held together nations with multiple kings sometimes warring, sometimes not. This did not stop until the 17th century.
Wales was for a long time after the 13th century nothing more than a number of smaller "states", all ruling and quibbling among themselves, the only real difference with Indians was that they were not nomadic.
Greece was also consisting of some fifty minor city-states sometimes warring, sometimes not.
Your insistence that that Europe was not like I have proven above this is simply not true. You should read up on your history and stop spreading social nationalistic lies.
At least for the subs it has more to do with shipyards in the NE than anything else...
It's not in any nation's interest to have a major nuclear exchange. There's not a single nation that would survive it. The utter chaos afterward as the food supplies dwindled would be guaranteed to topple everyone.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I'm not spreading lies, and what you just said does not contradict what I've said only because you've missed the point.
What you've said about European history is true. But, much of Europe still had advanced technology thanks to the concept of a written language. Almost all of the Native American's didn't have a written language except for the following few. The Cherokee, Navajo, and Cheyenne for example. The rest communicated either purely oral or with glyphs and artwork. During the Pre-Columbian era, all of North American and Canada was mesolithic (hunter-gatherers) as well of most of the South American continent. At the time, the most advanced civilizations were found in mesoamerica which comprised of Inca, Maya, Aztec, Olmec, and many others. But NONE of them could compete with European culture from the standpoint of organization, knowledge, and technology. They were simply too advanced and thus displaced ownership of the North and South American continents.
But here's the most important aspect of all this. Europeans wouldn't have gotten so far so fast without the germ. Europe (unknowingly) brought with them disease that the natives didn't have an immunity against. More people died at the hands of mother nature than all the conflicts of war combined at that time. Now, I'm not an expert on Chinese culture, but my wife is. Hypothetically, I wonder if the same would have happened if they crossed the pacific. I know they traded with much with the Europeans, so they may have already been immunized. Regardless, I highly recommend a book titled "Guns Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond.
Life is not for the lazy.
Well, what happened? Made a mess out of the one city, of course. But the rest of the nation soldered on.
As I understand it, the emergency response organizations were pressed to their absolute limit (and beyond) and that's with very few casualties. Take New Orleans, give all those people third degree burns and radiation sickness, and then raise it New York, LA Chicago and Houston. It would do a wee bit more than "piss you off."
Yes, the US or any of the other major nuclear powers would be able to retaliate after losing a few cities, but they'd be able to retaliate even if you nuked every square inch of the country too. Losing a few of your biggest cities (or even one of your biggest cities) is probably as effective a deterrent, provided it's guaranteed to be delivered, as having your whole country glassed.
An adequate force of small SSBNs would probably do very nicely as a deterrent force, be much cheaper than the full "tripod" AND be a lot safer for the world as a whole.
Part of the expenditure on new nukes, is to create a weapon with the same capabilities as the current stockpile, with much less maintenance cost. The new ones would not be additive to current stockpiles, as the number is limited by treaty. They would be replacements for aging warheads that require constant maintenance and upkeep.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
You don't have it quite right.
In the 50's, it was all about making huge bombs with huge explosions mostly for propaganda purposes, and because bombers were the only delivery mechanism that existed.
When rocketry started to happen, the weapon designers realized that everything was about weight, and the super-bombs couldn't be fitted onto anything smaller than an Atlas-II. Also, the inverse-cube law of an expanding sphere dictates that it requires ever-more output to see any gain in actual destructive radius. Someone got the bright idea that more smaller explosions would cover much more area than one big fucker of an explosion. Thus, MIRV was born. It's cheaper, more feasible from an engineering point of view, and makes anti-missile systems nigh useless. Oh, and it miniaturizes stuff to the point you can fit them in submarines. Oh, and because you're not boosting into megaton range with a very dirty U238 tamper, they're a lot cleaner and don't leave shitloads of fallout blowing around the planet for years like the massive tests of the 1950s did.
You need to look at the scale of weapon developments in the last 60 years. Fat Man was a bottle rocket (22 Kt) in comparison to what one warhead on a Trident D5 can do (450 Kt) , and the Trident has multiples per launch tube. The big fucker bombs you're thinking of would be the ones like they tested at Castle Bravo, which were in the Megaton range (8500 Kt).
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Well based off this site (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8gWSvE-mDicJ:www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question79701.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=encrypted.google.com), you'd need at least 3158 just to hit every major metro area. And that doesn't count intercepted missiles, launch failures, duds, or silos sabotaged or destroyed prior to launch. I'd say 5k is a good number. I wouldn't go any lower than 4k personally.
Well, civilazaion made it pretty far into the industrial revolution without oil, and unless things fell back to the stone age, we'd still remember about solar when we needed to jump from wind/water/wood power, so no absolute need for oil.
You did hear that "nuclear winter" was a scam, right?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The same as "the right" - to convince you that they're in the right, and the other side is in the wrong; and to convince you that their preferred method of running things is the One True Way.
Note that I saw this in the aforementioned article, just - as I said - that I automatically find myself looking for it, on the basis of the articles I saw during the time I was reading the Atlantic.
I don't think you need to hit every city to destroy humanity. Just lift enough dust and put out enough radioactives to make the food supply nonexistent for 10 years.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
No, the motivation of the right is normally "to benefit either myself, people I know, or people that are in my social class... financially, that is."