Obama to reduce our nuclear arsenal by 80%

[MilitaryArms]

Obama Mulls 80 Percent Disarmament of Nuclear Arsenal

Obama can't figure out how to balance his budget while feeding the great socialist machine he's creating, so naturally he'll disarm the United States to save a few bucks so he can say "See, my spending isn't THAT bad!"

Let's not mention he's off trying to start a war with Iran... what a great time to me instituting massive cuts to national defense!

 

[Pocketman]

Kill two birds with one stone. Deliver our excess nukes to Iran.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Dis-armament of nuclear weapons always makes me laugh.

Oh yeah Vladamir, we got rid of 1,000 nukes last year, honest injun!!

 

[Sylvain]

Dis-armament of nuclear weapons always makes me laugh.

Oh yeah Vladamir, we got rid of 1,000 nukes last year, honest injun!!

Even smaller nuclear powers have enough to blow off the entire planet.
So even if the US really reduces its nuclear arsenal that will still be plenty enough to start a good party.

 

[LegatoRedrivers]

What are they doing with the nukes they're getting rid of?

 

[LEaSH]

Those things will suck the paint off of your house and give your family a permanent orange afro.

 

[Sylvain]

What are they doing with the nukes they're getting rid of?

lol and it has shipping for only $12.

 

[jayhawk]

There are really only three ways to play with a significant portion of the budget: entitlements, defense, and taxes. The problem is that a lot of people in the country depend on either entitlement spending or defense spending for all or part of their income.

Cutting nuke spending actually makes a fair amount of sense for a couple reasons. Much of our arsenal is old and nearing the end of it's lifespan anyway. Relatively few jobs are involved in the production and maintenaince of this arsenal compared to other areas of defense. Also, even our best ICBMs are borderline obsolete. We now rely on tactical nukes to maintain MAD, which it seems is becoming increasingly irrelevant in a globalist world.

 

[NYFelon]

Those things will suck the paint off of your house and give your family a permanent orange afro.

Doctor. Doctor.
Doctor. Doctor.
Doctor. Doctor.
Doctor. Doctor.
Doctor. Doctor.
Doctor. Doctor.
Doctor. Doctor.
Doctor. Doctor.
Doctor. Doctor.
Doctor. Doctor.
Doctor. Doctor.
Doctor. Doctor.
Doctor. Doctor.
Doctor. Doctor.
Doctor. Doctor.
Doctor. Doctor.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Not too sure how they "get rid" of nukes .... but couldnt we get rid of our spent nuclear rods the same way? My biggest problem with nuclear power, is the waste that supposedly we cannot be rid of.

 

[Brandon]

Not too sure how they "get rid" of nukes .... but couldnt we get rid of our spent nuclear rods the same way? My biggest problem with nuclear power, is the waste that supposedly we cannot be rid of.

Doesn't all the nuclear material go to some Mountain somewhere out west?

It's not like we really got rid of the stuff...

 

[mrjarrell]

Nuclear warheads are disposed of quite simply. They disassemble them and prepare the nuclear material for storage. The US currently has a 15 year backlog of warheads to dispose of. The ones Obama wants to get rid of will be around at least another 20. They'll just be detached from delivery systems, in all likelihood. We can do without all of those anyway. We'll still be able to destroy the planet a few times over.

 

[actaeon277]

Those things will suck the paint off of your house and give your family a permanent orange afro.

Nice "Spies Like Us" reference.

 

[msr]

lol and it has shipping for only $12.

That's because the government is subsidizing it so they'll sell faster. I can't imagine the shipping price for one of those things!

 

[actaeon277]

There are really only three ways to play with a significant portion of the budget: entitlements, defense, and taxes. The problem is that a lot of people in the country depend on either entitlement spending or defense spending for all or part of their income.

Cutting nuke spending actually makes a fair amount of sense for a couple reasons. Much of our arsenal is old and nearing the end of it's lifespan anyway. Relatively few jobs are involved in the production and maintenaince of this arsenal compared to other areas of defense. Also, even our best ICBMs are borderline obsolete. We now rely on tactical nukes to maintain MAD, which it seems is becoming increasingly irrelevant in a globalist world.

STRATEGIC nukes maintain MAD.
Tactical nukes would be more of a battlefield weapon.

Cutting nuke spending to help the budget is like buying a new car every year, and then, to save money, you don't buy windshield wipers. It's not the wipers that's the problem

Do you realize how much of our spending is on nukes?
And, supposedly we have a force smaller than the WWII force because of the nukes balance of power. So does that mean we increase the size of the military again?

I don't know about irrelevant. Terrorists aren't the only worry in the world. Isn't that the "fighting the last war" syndrome? Not saying we're going to fight someone right now. But if someone starts something, do you want to be the guy at the front with only stuff good enough to fight terrorist?

 

[windellmc]

Nuclear warheads are disposed of quite simply. They disassemble them and prepare the nuclear material for storage. The US currently has a 15 year backlog of warheads to dispose of. The ones Obama wants to get rid of will be around at least another 20. They'll just be detached from delivery systems, in all likelihood. We can do without all of those anyway. We'll still be able to destroy the planet a few times over.

The problem with getting rid of nukes is that you reduce your capability to respond after your enemy's first strike takes out a bunch of your weapons. If they know they can knock out most of your arsenal quickly they will be more likely to try it. Also nukes are not nearly as destructive as you think. We do not have enough to destroy the planet even once let alone multiple times.

Look at pictures of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. There were still parts of buildings standing close to ground zero. Keep in mind those cities were mostly made of wood and paper too.

 

[jayhawk]

STRATEGIC nukes maintain MAD.
Tactical nukes would be more of a battlefield weapon.

Cutting nuke spending to help the budget is like buying a new car every year, and then, to save money, you don't buy windshield wipers. It's not the wipers that's the problem

Do you realize how much of our spending is on nukes?
And, supposedly we have a force smaller than the WWII force because of the nukes balance of power. So does that mean we increase the size of the military again?

I don't know about irrelevant. Terrorists aren't the only worry in the world. Isn't that the "fighting the last war" syndrome? Not saying we're going to fight someone right now. But if someone starts something, do you want to be the guy at the front with only stuff good enough to fight terrorist?

You're right, I meant to refer to SLBMs primarily, which is what we count on to maintain MAD. Our ICBMs are a bit lacking next to the Topol-M generation, esp after the Peacekeeper program was fazed out. I'm assuming our SLBM fleet would be maintained.

 

[mrjarrell]

Look at pictures of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. There were still parts of buildings standing close to ground zero. Keep in mind those cities were mostly made of wood and paper too.

The bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were orders of magnitude smaller than the devices on modern ICBM's. A nuclear warhead is horribly destructive, not just in blast damage but in irradiating large swaths of land. Fallout isn't something to forget. We can certainly do without most of our arsenal. Especially the land based missiles. We have plenty of sub launched, (which can't be targeted easily) to insure an enemy can be retaliated against.

 

[jayhawk]

The problem with getting rid of nukes is that you reduce your capability to respond after your enemy's first strike takes out a bunch of your weapons. If they know they can knock out most of your arsenal quickly they will be more likely to try it. Also nukes are not nearly as destructive as you think. We do not have enough to destroy the planet even once let alone multiple times.

Look at pictures of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. There were still parts of buildings standing close to ground zero. Keep in mind those cities were mostly made of wood and paper too.

The bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were orders of magnitude smaller than the devices on modern ICBM's. A nuclear warhead is horribly destructive, not just in blast damage but in irradiating large swaths of land. Fallout isn't something to forget. We can certainly do without most of our arsenal. Especially the land based missiles. We have plenty of sub launched, (which can't be targeted easily) to insure an enemy can be retaliated against.

You're both right. Nukes now are much stronger than they were then. They are certainly capable of devastating large swaths of land (and population centers). Destroy the planet, probably not, but they certainly have the potential to break a lot of stuff.

Here is a good read, if you are interested in this sort of thing: http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/5

 

[actaeon277]

The bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were orders of magnitude smaller than the devices on modern ICBM's. A nuclear warhead is horribly destructive, not just in blast damage but in irradiating large swaths of land. Fallout isn't something to forget. We can certainly do without most of our arsenal. Especially the land based missiles. We have plenty of sub launched, (which can't be targeted easily) to insure an enemy can be retaliated against.

Until someone figures out how to get to them. The "enemy", or "future opponent" or whatever, also thinks. Spies, like the "Walkers" give away secrets. Technology changes could make submarines easy to track.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket. At least you can make the enemy work for it.

And, don't be too sure about us having enough. They've already cut down on "Boomers".