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.'"
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?
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.
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!
"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.
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.
... 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.
The stimulus didn't fail. The economy was in free fall, whereas now it's just stagnant. Had we done another round of stimulus the odds are pretty good that we'd be going in the right direction. But, it's pretty dishonest to say that it didn't work when rather than free fall we're moving in the right direction, albeit slowly.
At any rate, cutting taxes for the wealthy hasn't exactly been working out so well. And we've got more than enough capital right now in the markets. What we don't have is consumer spending because all that money is going to the wealthiest.
The biggest part of the US budget is health care subsidies currently at $793 billion a year.
That isn't even the whole of it. There are also the costs that individuals (or their employers) incur to acquire medical insurance. The overall price payed by americans for health coverage is staggering. I'm not sure where the money goes - insurance companies, drug companies, medical suppliers - but someone is getting their pockets filled.
By comparison, Canada spends about 1/2* as much per capita on health care services while offering universal coverage. There are still problems with the Canadian system but at least people are not dying due to lack of coverage/services. *Note that with the fall of the American dollar, this amount will have increased.
So the biggest economy in the world is the only advanced economy that doesn't offer universal health care. But what is really sad is what I hear in the American media - the fear-mongering from the Republican party is unbelievable. Those filled pockets must have some serious political connections to be able to spin such BS. Sad to think of all the people who buy into it - it's like shooting yourself in the foot.
Ha, a visiting elderly American once said that she pitied me for being subjected to a socialist health care system. Really? You pity me? Wow, ignorance truly is bliss.