Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHoly SHIT! Here's an Image of the 1st Millisecond of a Nuclear Explosion
Last edited Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:42 AM - Edit history (1)
From I fucking love science: https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=498343196853363&id=367116489976035&set=a.456449604376056.98921.367116489976035&relevant_count=1&refid=20&_ft_=fbid.498498290171187
Cutting the U.S. nuclear arsenal can help cut the deficit
By Walter Pincus,
Published: NOVEMBER 12, 9:59 PM ET
One way President Obama could help reduce the deficit is to trim funds planned for the next 10 years for building, maintaining and operating the U.S. nuclear weapons program.
That could save up to $100 billion over that period. Would it solve our deficit problem? No, but it would help. Such savings add up.
More than three years ago in Prague, Obama said that he wanted to put an end to Cold War thinking .?.?. (and) reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy. He and Russian President Vladimir Putin took a first step when they signed the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty on April 8, 2010, in Prague. The Senate approved it that December.
It called for reducing, by 2018, the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, and the number of deployed and non-deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and bombers to 800. It did not limit the number of non-deployed nuclear warheads or bombs; the United States has more than 2,500. Nor did it deal with shorter-range tactical nuclear weapons or cruise missiles.
More: http://washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cutting-the-us-nuclear-arsenal-can-help-cut-the-deficit/2012/11/12/350ddd1e-2ac2-11e2-b4e0-346287b7e56c_story.html
Something I think we can all get behind putting pressure on making this part of President Obama's legacy...
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 2376 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Holy SHIT! Here's an Image of the 1st Millisecond of a Nuclear Explosion (Original Post)
Turborama
Nov 2012
OP
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)1. K&R Awesome picture and a very good start on some actual change. n/t
aristocles
(594 posts)2. Now, I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. n/t
AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)3. video
Turborama
(22,109 posts)5. Incredible
Wow, 10,000,000 pictures a second.
Thanks for sharing.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)4. Melting down the arms doesn't do a thing if you keep the army.
The cost of maintaining our nuclear arsenal is not going to go away nor are the legacy costs of production. We build dam few new weapons, which is well and good, and money's spend on dismantling old ones is not in dispute. So where is all this savings to come from? Also, just because you might do away with many of the weapons doesn't mean that their successors will cost less nor does it address the base problem which is the size of the military, not how we arm them.
Turborama
(22,109 posts)6. "Where is all this savings to come from? "
Doing away with land based ICBMs, as suggested by the author, will eliminate the cost of maintaining/updating that portion of our nuclear arsenal.